I'm guessing it's a function of nonbelievers being impure (najis) and impure things defiling pure things they touch, if they're wet. So nonbelievers getting wet in the rain risk defiling things.
The Mughals just weren't very frum and so were relaxed about art. As were the Ottomans. But there's nothing in Islamic history like modern Iranian icon culture (which then spread to Lebanon and to some degree to Iraq).
I enjoy reading 19th century orientalists who were just sort of bemused by the entire phenomenon of Shiism. Theodor Nöldeke seems to have thought it was a bastardised Christian/Muslim hybrid that worships a trinity consisting of Allah, Muhammad and Ali. I figured that was true only of the Alawites, but it seems like it’s also true to some degree of all Shiites, although the more orthodox ones seem somewhat embarrassed about it.
it’s not particularly clear tbh, all you say is that iran is ruled by clerics of “a criminal religion, at any rate a criminal version of one,” which could equally well refer to the qom seminary, or twelver shi’ism, or shia islam in general. glad to have cleared that up though
The other forms of Shia do not feed much into later Iranian history. That the Twelvers did not support the Fatimid claims was another reason for the Abbasids to be less stressed about them.
As usual, super informative and detailed. It is very interesting to think of their ornate designs as a result of supression of other forms of imagery.
Overall, to my untrained eye, Islamic history reads like continual family squabbles. I can't keep up. The schisms and wars are based on inheritence, not on ideals. Hopefully in the future you could give some insight into actual evolution of Islam itself. To my cursory reading Islam was advancing scientifically until Al Ghazali decided spirtual belief was above science. They have not found a balance since. How do they modernize when all forward motion depends on science applied in the material world?
The Sunni view is that it is just a political disagreement on succession to the religious and secular authority of the Prophet, but the Shia turned that disagreement into theology. Sunnis are a bit like Protestants (though some argue Orthodoxy is the better analogy) and Shia are kind of like Catholics.
The Al Ghazali thing is not true at all. Just a common myth.
Al Ghazali pushed scepticism about our knowledge of causation. That, combined with the massive increase of madrassas under the Seljuks pushing his ideas, had a measurable serious deleterious effect on Islamic science.
Unfair view, the ideals are hidden behind the clan. You can see the Schism as Sunnis adhering to a more orthodox/protestant role while Shiias being a more catholic/evangelical one.
Also Islam being a religion that encompasses life and its way, the details matter in the squabbles but it is understandable it looks strange from the outside
History shows that any religion can be used to justify almost any excess by people in power or seeking power, and any religion can be used to keep the people meek and quiet.
The one progress that stuck was the prohibition of literal human sacrifices.
●●●I thought you were going to mention Chabad, but you only mentioned the permutations thing…???? well, permutations are truly Jewish, maybe even Abrahamic, and you can’t deny that. What isn’t Jewish at all is the idea of an absolutely transcendent (absent) God ( like Allah), something that Isaac Luria seems to have absorbed, at least conceptually, from Sufism and Shiism. That’s why you might see ““some”” parallels there… ““monotheism”” has multiple faces and nuances.
●●●Anyway, I won’t go into structural details because Shiʿism is extremely complex, and the ambiguity of its historical development produced what I like to call a religion of the panopticon: power, intrigue, and theology fused together. Actually, I may have just invented the title of a future article, lol. But I’m completely serious about the panopticon, because it’s related to the topic you elaborate on here.
●●● Iranian Shiʿism is formally iconoclastic. But iconoclasm always defines itself against idolatry (FIRST rule to identify it), and that opens an interesting comparison with Christianity. Orthodoxy allows icons but not sculpture. Catholicism goes further; icons, reliefs, sculptures everywhere. Gothic cathedrals are basically visual theology carved in stone. Protestantism rejects the whole visual regime and replaces it with the text: read the Bible.
●●●Islam complicates things even more. The prohibition of images is theological. God is radically transcendent; not “Our Father” but an absolute sovereignty before which man stands in awe and trembling.
●●●Now comes the actual paradox of Iran. Culturally the Iranians are Persians, and Persian culture thinks in images. Farsi constantly produces imagery; Persian poetry is almost deliriously visual; gardens, roses, wine, nightingales. The Persian imagination is fundamentally eidetic. Introduce a religion that restricts images into such a civilization and something has to give. And indeed it does. Walk through Iran and you see murals of the Imams, martyrdom scenes of Karbala, portraits of clerics and martyrs everywhere. Inside homes there are often small shrine-like spaces with pictures of saints or scholars.
●●●I once asked why. The answer was almost magical: if you keep these figures before your eyes, they transmit their strength, their spirit, their baraka. Their presence accompanies you.
●●●From a Protestant/Jewish/Sunni perspective this looks like idolatry. But the Shiʿite explanation is that the saints are conduits of transmitted light. And once you notice this visual culture, something else becomes clear…You understand how Twelver Shiʿism managed to consolidate the power it has today. For an eschatological sect centered on the Hidden Imam and the coming Mahdi, visuality is essential. The eschaton must remain present, visible. So the streets themselves become theology; murals, martyrs, faces watching from buildings… a creepy panopticon. Or in other words: an officially iconoclastic religion that nevertheless keeps its eschaton permanently VISIBLE.
Ya Ali! Ya Hussein! How disgracefully does this article depict ancient holy practices: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DuEktwbqRTQ.
An apparent contemporary instance of the Quran head thing (serious link this time): https://xcancel.com/Osint613/status/1934256085189226644#m.
How does walking outside in rain defile the pure?
If water hits you and splashes on to them.
I'm guessing it's a function of nonbelievers being impure (najis) and impure things defiling pure things they touch, if they're wet. So nonbelievers getting wet in the rain risk defiling things.
See: https://al-islam.org/guide-religious-laws-mohammad-husayn-falah-zadeh/chapter-2-tahara-purity
Water transmits impurity. You are sharing water, so you are sharing impurity. Think of it being like electricity.
I am not an expert but my impression was that the Persian Islamic World (Whether or not they justified it) was always pretty cool with images.
(When I say Persian I mean everyplace that had Persian as it's court language so most of India in this context counts as Persian)
The Mughals just weren't very frum and so were relaxed about art. As were the Ottomans. But there's nothing in Islamic history like modern Iranian icon culture (which then spread to Lebanon and to some degree to Iraq).
Ali ibn Abi Talib*.
I enjoy reading 19th century orientalists who were just sort of bemused by the entire phenomenon of Shiism. Theodor Nöldeke seems to have thought it was a bastardised Christian/Muslim hybrid that worships a trinity consisting of Allah, Muhammad and Ali. I figured that was true only of the Alawites, but it seems like it’s also true to some degree of all Shiites, although the more orthodox ones seem somewhat embarrassed about it.
fairly large fatimid-shaped hole in your history of shia islam here
It's about twelvers. What's the pertinence?
so you think twelver shi’ism is a criminal religion but ismailism is fine?
Even non Qom-affiliated twelverism is not a criminal religion. Did you read the article?
it’s not particularly clear tbh, all you say is that iran is ruled by clerics of “a criminal religion, at any rate a criminal version of one,” which could equally well refer to the qom seminary, or twelver shi’ism, or shia islam in general. glad to have cleared that up though
The article is written in such a way that it makes the most sense if you read it in order. We can't all be literary geniuses.
The other forms of Shia do not feed much into later Iranian history. That the Twelvers did not support the Fatimid claims was another reason for the Abbasids to be less stressed about them.
As usual, super informative and detailed. It is very interesting to think of their ornate designs as a result of supression of other forms of imagery.
Overall, to my untrained eye, Islamic history reads like continual family squabbles. I can't keep up. The schisms and wars are based on inheritence, not on ideals. Hopefully in the future you could give some insight into actual evolution of Islam itself. To my cursory reading Islam was advancing scientifically until Al Ghazali decided spirtual belief was above science. They have not found a balance since. How do they modernize when all forward motion depends on science applied in the material world?
The Sunni view is that it is just a political disagreement on succession to the religious and secular authority of the Prophet, but the Shia turned that disagreement into theology. Sunnis are a bit like Protestants (though some argue Orthodoxy is the better analogy) and Shia are kind of like Catholics.
The Al Ghazali thing is not true at all. Just a common myth.
Al Ghazali pushed scepticism about our knowledge of causation. That, combined with the massive increase of madrassas under the Seljuks pushing his ideas, had a measurable serious deleterious effect on Islamic science.
Unfair view, the ideals are hidden behind the clan. You can see the Schism as Sunnis adhering to a more orthodox/protestant role while Shiias being a more catholic/evangelical one.
Also Islam being a religion that encompasses life and its way, the details matter in the squabbles but it is understandable it looks strange from the outside
Even when you talk about Iran we all know who you're really referring to.
History shows that any religion can be used to justify almost any excess by people in power or seeking power, and any religion can be used to keep the people meek and quiet.
The one progress that stuck was the prohibition of literal human sacrifices.
●●●I thought you were going to mention Chabad, but you only mentioned the permutations thing…???? well, permutations are truly Jewish, maybe even Abrahamic, and you can’t deny that. What isn’t Jewish at all is the idea of an absolutely transcendent (absent) God ( like Allah), something that Isaac Luria seems to have absorbed, at least conceptually, from Sufism and Shiism. That’s why you might see ““some”” parallels there… ““monotheism”” has multiple faces and nuances.
●●●Anyway, I won’t go into structural details because Shiʿism is extremely complex, and the ambiguity of its historical development produced what I like to call a religion of the panopticon: power, intrigue, and theology fused together. Actually, I may have just invented the title of a future article, lol. But I’m completely serious about the panopticon, because it’s related to the topic you elaborate on here.
●●● Iranian Shiʿism is formally iconoclastic. But iconoclasm always defines itself against idolatry (FIRST rule to identify it), and that opens an interesting comparison with Christianity. Orthodoxy allows icons but not sculpture. Catholicism goes further; icons, reliefs, sculptures everywhere. Gothic cathedrals are basically visual theology carved in stone. Protestantism rejects the whole visual regime and replaces it with the text: read the Bible.
●●●Islam complicates things even more. The prohibition of images is theological. God is radically transcendent; not “Our Father” but an absolute sovereignty before which man stands in awe and trembling.
●●●Now comes the actual paradox of Iran. Culturally the Iranians are Persians, and Persian culture thinks in images. Farsi constantly produces imagery; Persian poetry is almost deliriously visual; gardens, roses, wine, nightingales. The Persian imagination is fundamentally eidetic. Introduce a religion that restricts images into such a civilization and something has to give. And indeed it does. Walk through Iran and you see murals of the Imams, martyrdom scenes of Karbala, portraits of clerics and martyrs everywhere. Inside homes there are often small shrine-like spaces with pictures of saints or scholars.
●●●I once asked why. The answer was almost magical: if you keep these figures before your eyes, they transmit their strength, their spirit, their baraka. Their presence accompanies you.
●●●From a Protestant/Jewish/Sunni perspective this looks like idolatry. But the Shiʿite explanation is that the saints are conduits of transmitted light. And once you notice this visual culture, something else becomes clear…You understand how Twelver Shiʿism managed to consolidate the power it has today. For an eschatological sect centered on the Hidden Imam and the coming Mahdi, visuality is essential. The eschaton must remain present, visible. So the streets themselves become theology; murals, martyrs, faces watching from buildings… a creepy panopticon. Or in other words: an officially iconoclastic religion that nevertheless keeps its eschaton permanently VISIBLE.