If this is haram, we're both damned!

Between 1981 and 1983 I worked in Bahrain in the Persian (now Arabian) Gulf, which is where I acquired my first camera and started taking pictures, but we always had to be very careful because it is haram (against religious law) to make images of another human and strict muslims will not have their picture taken.

How ironic that in a shopping mall in London in 2009 I see these muslim women using a Canon DSLR to take pictures of their child. To me this is a contradiction since their dress indicates they are strict followers of Islam, yet their actions indicate otherwise. I am sure Fahim will tell me if I am wrong here, but that has always been my understanding.

Notwithstanding the irony of this shot, I always like to take pictures of people taking pictures. That in itself holds a certain irony for me. These are low light and furtively taken as I did not want to 'intrude' or alert them to what I was doing. Being discreet with a Nikon D300 though is almost a contradiction in terms

ISO 1600, 1/20th, 46mm, 18-200mm

1. Nigel Allan - If making images of humans is haram, we’re both in trouble - a

2. Nigel Allan - If making images of humans is haram, we’re both in trouble - b

3. Nigel Allan - If making images of humans is haram, we’re both in trouble - c​

Hi, Nigel,

Nigel Allan said:

. . . How ironic that in a shopping mall in London in 2009 I see these muslim women using a Canon DSLR to take pictures of their child.. . .

Click to expand...

The first of the three is especially precious.

Nigel,

I don't think Haram applies to you. Next if you believe it applies to them, why photograph them and put it on public view? Photography is always like that. We have to ask ourselves what we're doing! I don't think you did anything really wrong! However, it's obvious that although these women signify that although they follow their faith as far as modesty is concenred, they do not hide their faces. This suggest some more relaxed ideas on what's permisable. I don't know what the range of interpretations on making an image are. Still, photography is common throughout the Muslim world. Furthermore, we know that photography as a very developed artform in the Iranian and Arab societies is a very richly invested custom and hobby so it cannot be utterly forbidden in all circumstances. It started with European then Armenian photographers but now we have portraitists from all countries in the Middle East. There is currently an exhibition in Paris which celebrates this fascination, even poetic love affair with photography in the Middle East certainly. In Afghanistan, at least until the Taliban rule, street photography was common even in small towns.

Asher

See this for 150 years of Iranian Photography.

Also

"An unprecedented exploration of the Arab and Iranian scene In 2009, Paris Photo proposes to undertake an unprecedented exploration of photographic practices in the Orient. Photography arrived in the region in the 19th Century. It has become the dominant medium in what is today a diverse and autonomous contemporary art scene that is now attracting considerable interest internationally. Catherine David, Director of Documenta X at Kassel in 1997 and the author of numerous exhibitions and publications on Arab contemporary artistic production, will present the major characteristics of this emerging and poorly documented scene, in three parts. First is the Central Exhibition showing a selection of rare images from the collections of the Arab Image Foundation in Beirut. The Statement* section will provide an overview of emerging talent form Tehran to Damascus, Beirut to Cairo and Tangiers to Dubai. Finally, the Project Room will offer a programme of video screenings, testimony to the growing interest for the dynamics of this medium among the artists of the region. "

from here.

Yes it does apply to me, although I was tongue in cheek about being damned, of course.

Many people in Bahrain would not let you take their picture because it is making an effigy effectively or a copy of something made by Allah.

I disagree with you about their dress. These are not the kind of women who completely cover their faces, but let's face it they are wearing dress which is making a striong public statement about their religion, yet their actions, in my view, undermine this. It's almost like a Hasidic Jew eating a bacon sandwich in public.

By the way, THEY are the ones who are doing this in public. I simply recorded it and saw the irony in it. If they wanted to be private they would have been. I think personally they were being ignorant of or flouting their own conventions, but that is just my personal opinion.

Asher Kelman said:

See this for 150 years of Iranian Photography.

Click to expand...

I will look at it, but don't forget we are living through and age of neo-fundamentalism where many muslims are more observant and more strident about their religion than they used to be. Many Arab men who used to wear western dress in the 1960s and 1970s wouldn't be caught dead in it now (sic).

Iran went through a period of incredible modernisation under the old Shah, but became violently reactionary when he was overthrown in 1979 and for the next 20-30 years went through a period of trying to obliterate almost all western/modern influence

Nigel Allan said:

Many people in Bahrain would not let you take their picture because it is making an effigy effectively or a copy of something made by Allah.

Click to expand...

That is only an interpretation of what was written in a book. Interpretations vary between taking it literally, and seeing it for what the underlying principle is (which is again open for discussion, except for fundamentalists). Even the headscarf, is an interpretation, it has to be seen in historical context. Modern Muslims don't necessarily have a problem with women not wearing a headscarf, and still be good Muslims. In countries like Morocco, apparently many women don't wear headscarfs.

I disagree with you about their dress. These are not the kind of women who completely cover their faces, but let's face it they are wearing dress which is making a striong public statement about their religion, yet their actions, in my view, undermine this.

Click to expand...

So they are traditional in their dress code. That doesn't mean they are traditional in their religion, apparently ...

Cheers,
Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

That is only an interpretation of what was written in a book. Interpretations vary between taking it literally, and seeing it for what the underlying principle is (which is again open for discussion, except for fundamentalists). Even the headscarf, is an interpretation, ...

So they are traditional in their dress code. That doesn't mean they are traditional in their religion, apparently ...

Cheers,
Bart

Click to expand...

Of course you are right Bart, but this is about 'how you present yourself to the outside world' not about adherence to religious or even cultural rules per se.

For me there is an apparent contradiction in presenting oneself as a good muslim but not necessarily acting like it.

I had taken a picture of her knocking back a can of Heineken the irony and contrast would have been stronger no doubt, but this is irony nonetheless IMHO

Nigel Allan said:

Of course you are right Bart, but this is about 'how you present yourself to the outside world' not about adherence to religious or even cultural rules per se.

For me there is an apparent contradiction in presenting oneself as a good muslim but not necessarily acting like it.

I had taken a picture of her knocking back a can of Heineken the irony and contrast would have been stronger no doubt, but this is irony nonetheless IMHO

Click to expand...

I understand the feelings. It will be some time before the Muslim community can make as clear a separation between e.g. politics, philosophy, science and religion as most Western European cultures do after the age of Enlightenment.

The times, they are a-changin' ..., and your images are a testament to that fact.

Cheers,
Bart

Times aren't changing in the whole muslim world, last year iworked in Oman, the part thats surrounded by the UAE, no way i could make a picture of woman there they got realy upset if they only thought i was pointing the camera at them.....................

Hans Miedema said:

Times aren't changing in the whole muslim world, last year iworked in Oman, the part thats surrounded by the UAE, no way i could make a picture of woman there they got realy upset if they only thought i was pointing the camera at them.....................

Click to expand...

Hans, thank you. This has been my experience, hence the irony of this photo here.

Asher was quick to point out the rich heritage of Iranian photography, but running counter to this is the trend for neo-fundamentalism and there are indeed parts of the muslim world where pointing a camera at someone could cause a lot of problems due to the belief that it is forbidden to make images of another human.

Nigel Allan said:

Hans, thank you. This has been my experience, hence the irony of this photo here.

Asher was quick to point out the rich heritage of Iranian photography, but running counter to this is the trend for neo-fundamentalism and there are indeed parts of the muslim world where pointing a camera at someone could cause a lot of problems due to the belief that it is forbidden to make images of another human.

Click to expand...

My late father, of precious memory, was quite disturbed when we where given a sculpture as a gift. It was against the precept to have graven images*. So he banged it on the concrete path until he chipped of a little, just a minor point, to make it imperfect. Then it was allowed in the house!

Asher

*"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." This prohibition from Exodus chapter 20, Judaism's most prickly admonition to art and artists, is the launchpad of Julius's quest. It has provided philistines, zealots and tyrants with scriptural justification for all manner of censorships, persecutions and bonfires, massacres of images and their makers. It has also pushed artists to capture the transcendental. Source.

Asher Kelman said:

My late father, of precious memory, was quite disturbed when we where given a sculpture as a gift. It was against the precept to have graven images*.

...

*"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." This prohibition from Exodus chapter 20, Judaism's most prickly admonition to art and artists, is the launchpad of Julius's quest. It has provided philistines, zealots and tyrants with scriptural justification for all manner of censorships, persecutions and bonfires, massacres of images and their makers. It has also pushed artists to capture the transcendental. Source.

Click to expand...

Which, in it's proper context of promoting monotheism, is an understandable principle, or even dogma. But as often is the case, things can be blown out of proportion or used in other contexts for which they weren't invented. It's more about culture than religion, unless one doesn't make a distinction between the two.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

It's more about culture than religion, unless one doesn't make a distinction between the two.

Cheers,
Bart

Click to expand...

Bart, I believe it takes a sophisticated mind and liberal thinking to separate the two and it is a testament (no pun intended) to your intellect to be able to make this distinction. I fear that many people cannot as their religion and culture are so closely intertwined.

For me also the division is clear, but for many people the very reason they follow religious dogma is the fact that they are 'programmed' to do so by their culture and upbringing (I am sure this last remark will get some people's hackles up but that is not the intention, although if it does they perhaps should analyse why it presses a hot button in them before reacting ).