Image and Sculpture in Shia Jurisprudence (Book): Difference between revisions
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
The author states that some Islamic jurists view astonishment as a prerequisite for the prohibition of images. He questions whether astonishment is indeed a necessary condition for the prohibition of image creation and explores the perspectives of various jurists on this issue. He points out that Sheikh Ansari recognized astonishment as a crucial condition for the prohibition of image-making, while [[Mirza Ali Iravani]] critiqued Sheikh's position, asserting that astonishment is not part of the subject matter of the evidence and that all images are inherently astonishing at first, but this quality diminishes with time. Thus, astonishment should not be considered a necessary condition. The writer acknowledges Irawani's critique of Sheikh Ansari's statements and asserts that astonishment is not naturally part of the subject, and this requirement, due to the fleeting nature of astonishment associated with images, cannot form the foundation for a jurisprudential decision (pp. 139-141). | The author states that some Islamic jurists view astonishment as a prerequisite for the prohibition of images. He questions whether astonishment is indeed a necessary condition for the prohibition of image creation and explores the perspectives of various jurists on this issue. He points out that Sheikh Ansari recognized astonishment as a crucial condition for the prohibition of image-making, while [[Mirza Ali Iravani]] critiqued Sheikh's position, asserting that astonishment is not part of the subject matter of the evidence and that all images are inherently astonishing at first, but this quality diminishes with time. Thus, astonishment should not be considered a necessary condition. The writer acknowledges Irawani's critique of Sheikh Ansari's statements and asserts that astonishment is not naturally part of the subject, and this requirement, due to the fleeting nature of astonishment associated with images, cannot form the foundation for a jurisprudential decision (pp. 139-141). | ||
=== The ruling on participation in creating sculpture or images === | === The ruling on participation in creating sculpture or images === | ||
The topic of collaborative image creation is another focus of the author, who examines whether the prohibition applies to all individuals involved when a group creates an image together. He cites various opinions, including that of [[Imam Khomeini]], who claims that the existing evidence does not adequately demonstrate the prohibition of collaborative efforts in image creation, yet he advises caution (p. 162). The author critiques this viewpoint, asserting that differentiating between independent and joint agents is a means to circumvent the jurisprudential ruling. He contends that this distinction allows individuals to engage in actions that are religiously prohibited without assuming direct responsibility, by relying on the assistance of others (p. 163). | The topic of collaborative image creation is another focus of the author, who examines whether the prohibition applies to all individuals involved when a group creates an image together. He cites various opinions, including that of [[Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini|Imam Khomeini]], who claims that the existing evidence does not adequately demonstrate the prohibition of collaborative efforts in image creation, yet he advises caution (p. 162). The author critiques this viewpoint, asserting that differentiating between independent and joint agents is a means to circumvent the jurisprudential ruling. He contends that this distinction allows individuals to engage in actions that are religiously prohibited without assuming direct responsibility, by relying on the assistance of others (p. 163). | ||
=== imaginary pictures === | === imaginary pictures === | ||
Do images of imaginary animals carry the same prohibition as those of real beings? This discussion revolves around the scope of the prohibitive evidence. In simpler terms, if we accept the broad interpretation of the evidence, the prohibition would apply to imaginary animals as well. On the other hand, if we reject this broad interpretation and limit the evidence to real beings, then the images of imaginary animals would not be subject to the prohibition (p. 164). The author mentions that Sheikh Ansari did not address this topic, but both Sahib Jawahir and Imam Khomeini assert that imaginary beings should be included with real ones, thus confirming the prohibition on their depiction (p. 164). | Do images of imaginary animals carry the same prohibition as those of real beings? This discussion revolves around the scope of the prohibitive evidence. In simpler terms, if we accept the broad interpretation of the evidence, the prohibition would apply to imaginary animals as well. On the other hand, if we reject this broad interpretation and limit the evidence to real beings, then the images of imaginary animals would not be subject to the prohibition (p. 164). The author mentions that Sheikh Ansari did not address this topic, but both Sahib Jawahir and Imam Khomeini assert that imaginary beings should be included with real ones, thus confirming the prohibition on their depiction (p. 164). | ||