K.K. AZIZ, who is known to us as a historian, has come up with an in-depth study of the arts as they developed and flourished in different societies of the Islamic world. This study, entitled The Meaning of Islamic Art, has been published by Al-Faisal (Urdu Bazaar, Lahore) in two volumes, having 1,208 pages.
K.K. Aziz tells us: “It has taken me exactly 24 years to research, write, and publish this work — much longer than any other book I have written.”
Along with this he has another tale of woe to tell. He says that the National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research had accepted his manuscript for publication, but with the change of regime there occurred a change in the attitude of the institute. The manuscript went into cold storage and the institute did not even have the courtesy to reply to any of the letters from K.K Aziz regarding the fate of his manuscript.
He wonders: “Why the government tried so hard for so many years to stop the publication of this book is beyond my imagination.”
Now, something about the nature of this study.
K.K. Aziz doesn’t seem to believe in the kind of classification such as Iranian art or Indo-Muslim art, where each country and each society in the Muslim world appears to be developing its own tradition of the arts with some peculiarities common among them because of being Muslims. Instead, he sees a unity in these traditions which is Islamic in essence. So, he starts with the assumption that there is such a thing what we regard as Islamic art and embark on a journey for its search in the manifold artistic traditions of the Muslim world. He faces no difficulty in finding it in the case of certain arts, such as calligraphy, which has Quranic origins.
But Muslim creative minds have so often been seen involved in the arts which had their roots in the local culture and mythology, not in harmony with Islam. They did not try to convert them into something Islamic. They , with their Islamic sensibility, left a stamp of their own on them. As far as such arts go, K.K. Aziz takes cue from Burckhardt, who once said: “It is by conforming to a certain hierarchy of values that the arts are integrated in Islam, and that they become Islamic art, whatever the source of their diverse elements may be.” And therefore he is accommodating enough to all Indian music as practised by Muslim musicians under the patronage of the Muslim courts of Delhi and Lucknow.
In the case of paintings he takes a stand in favour of figure representation. Talking of prohibition in this respect he says: “Alleged prohibition was rooted in the Holy Quran nor in any hadith, but in the social and mental make-up and group culture of the Arabs of the first two or three centuries of Islam.”
He adds: “The Arab society during the Holy Prophet’s (Pbuh) time and for about 200 years after him was not highly developed in the field of culture. People could not easily grasp the difference between a living creature and its representation.” Here, he quotes Richard Ettinghausen approvingly, who said: “A more detached consciousness of painting and with it an appreciation of figural representation were alien to this society.”
K.K. Aziz stops short at this stage. He convincingly argues in favour of figural representation on canvas, but carefully avoids any reference to figure representation in the form of a statue. Hence, no reference to sculpture. This art form has simply been deleted from his study. But why? He, while discussing paintings, categorically states: “There is absolutely no prohibition of representation of figures or of paintings or even of idol-making in the Holy Quran.”
If it is so, what then prevented him to accommodate this major art form in his study, where even different fabrics have been given the respect any genuine art deserves? One may argue that this art form, in spite of all its achievements in different cultures of the world, has never been able to capture the imagination of creative souls in the Muslim society. But this phenomenon itself demands that it should not go unnoticed. An art historian should have some explanation for it.
Another major art-form known as dance has also suffered the same kind of indifference. K.K Aziz discusses music elaborately, but is cautious enough not to make any reference to dance. He tells us that in spite of Shia mujtahideen’s fatwa against music, dance flourished in Lucknow and enjoyed the patronage of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah. He forgets to note that the Nawab was more known for his patronage of Kathak and was himself a Kathak dancer. While discussing music he refers to the Sufis, but feigns ignorance to the whirling dance of Darveshes.
Is it because of his respect for the age-old prejudice of the orthodoxy against these arts? Or does he have his own reservations about certain art forms?
