Aniconism
Aniconism begins with a question that has unsettled artists, theologians, and rulers across dozens of cultures: is it permissible to give a face to the divine? The word itself comes from the Greek word for image, eikon, combined with the negative prefix an- and the suffix -ism. It names the cultural or religious absence of artistic representations, whether of gods, prophets, saints, or living beings generally.
What makes aniconism compelling is its range. In some traditions, the prohibition touches only the highest deity. In others, it sweeps outward to include an entire pantheon, every holy figure, and even ordinary human beings captured in a photograph. When the prohibition hardens into active destruction, it becomes something different entirely: iconoclasm, the smashing of images already made.
The story of aniconism is not a story of one religion imposing a rule. It runs through Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the Bahai Faith, ancient Germanic tribes, the Etruscans, and Australian Aboriginal communities. Each tradition arrived at similar questions by separate roads. And in almost every case, the historical record turns out to be messier, more contested, and more surprising than the official doctrine suggests.
In monotheistic religions, the impulse toward aniconism grew from a particular kind of anxiety. Believers understood God as the ultimate power holder, and they understood idolatry as a direct threat to that singular status. Prophets and missionaries fought that threat partly through the prohibition of physical representations.
The logic extended further still. If humans presumed to create images, they were implicitly claiming a power of creation that belonged to God alone. That presumption, according to this reading, is precisely what lies behind stories like the destruction of the Tower of Babel and the fall from the Heavens. The Second Commandment in the biblical texts belongs to the same argument.
Yet some modern scholars who have studied multiple cultures argue that aniconism is often more of an intellectual construction than a description of lived reality. The idea, they suggest, suits specific historical intents. What gets called aniconic practice in one era is sometimes, on closer inspection, a selective and partial tradition that coexisted with widespread figurative art all along. The Ambrosian Tanakh, made in 1236 by Jacob ben Samuel and Joseph ben Kalonymus, contains figural depictions of Adam and Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Solomon, and David, even though it is one of the earliest illuminated Ashkenazic manuscripts.
At the archaeological site of Sanchi, among the carved stone panels, a riderless horse walks beneath a parasol that floats over empty air. No figure sits in the saddle. No figure occupies the throne carved beside it. Since the serious study of Buddhist art history began in the 1890s, scholars had a name for this: aniconism. The earliest phase of Buddhist art, lasting until the 1st century CE, was described as a period when the Buddha was represented only through symbols: the empty throne, a Bodhi tree, Buddha's footprints, the dharma wheel.
A possible explanation was a rule recorded in the Sarvastivada vinaya, the regulations of an early Buddhist school. The text contains a question put to the Buddha himself: since it is not permitted to make an image of the Buddha's body, may an image of an attendant bodhisattva be made instead? The Buddha's recorded reply was simply: "You may make an image of the Bodhisattva."
Alfred A. Foucher was the first scholar to fully expound the theory that the earliest anthropomorphic images of the Buddha resulted from Greco-Buddhist cultural exchange, particularly widespread in the region of Gandhara. His theory was contested from the start by Ananda Coomaraswamy. In 1990, Susan Huntington pushed the debate further by arguing that many scenes previously called aniconic were not depictions of the Buddha's life at all, but rather scenes of devotees worshipping at relic sites. The empty throne, on her reading, is a relic-throne at Bodh Gaya. Huntington's reinterpretation was itself challenged by Vidya Dehejia and others, and the debate has continued among specialists.
The Quran does not explicitly prohibit the depiction of human figures. It condemns idolatry, but the specific interdictions against figurative representation come from the Hadith, recorded among roughly a dozen traditions from the later period of their compilation. Because those hadith are tied to particular events in the life of Muhammad, applying them as general prohibitions required interpretation, and interpretations diverged significantly.
Sunni exegetes from the 9th century onward increasingly read the hadith as categorical bans on any representation of living beings. Salafis and Wahhabis, among the most fundamentalist Sunni movements, are also often iconoclastic in practice. Shia communities and Sufi orders have held markedly less stringent views. The Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Najaf in Iraq issued a fatwa declaring that depictions of Muhammad, Islamic prophets, and other holy figures are permissible when made with the utmost respect.
The gap between doctrine and lived reality in Islamic societies has always been wide. Statues of humans and animals decorated the palaces of the Umayyad era. Figurative miniatures from medieval Arabic countries, India, Persia, and Turkey are among the highest achievements of Islamic art. Shah Tahmasp in Persia and Akbar in India, both patrons of extraordinary figurative miniatures, each migrated during their own lifetimes between an extravagant figurative period and an extremist aniconic one. During the 15th through 17th centuries, illustrated manuscripts from Persia, India, and Turkey depicted Muhammad, Adam, Abraham, Jesus, Solomon, and Alexander the Great. Taliban fighters in Kandahar, who imposed a formal ban on photography, still had their portraits taken in Kandahari photographic studios. In Ottoman lands, detailed literary descriptions of Muhammad's physical appearance grew into a distinct genre called Hilya.
Exodus 20:3-6, counted in Judaism as the second of the Ten Commandments, sets out the prohibition against graven images in stark terms: "Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in Heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Leviticus 26:1 reinforces the point. For centuries, these verses were read as evidence that Judaism was essentially aniconic.
David Kaufmann was the first scholar to mount a systematic challenge to that assumption. In 1878, he published an article in which he introduced the term "Jewish art" for the first time, and he went on to build what his disciple Samuel Krauss, writing in 1901, called an irrefutable case that the prohibition applied only where worship was involved, not to art broadly. Kaufmann marshalled medieval Ashkenazi illuminated manuscripts as his evidence.
Kalman Bland, a historian of ideas, extended the argument by proposing that Jewish aniconism as a concept crystallized alongside the construction of modern Jewish identity, making it a modern construction rather than an ancient reality. Medieval Jewish manuscripts offer their own puzzles. The Birds' Head Haggadah from around 1300, produced in Germany, depicts humans with animal heads, a style called zoocephalic. It is theorized that zoocephalic figures were a way to work around the prohibition, but some manuscripts feature human faces alongside them, which complicates that explanation. Orthodox Halakha as codified in the Shulkhan Aruch by Joseph Karo places the prohibition specifically on certain forms of sculpture and depictions of the human face, not on illustration generally. Fantastical creatures like griffins, harpies, sphinxes, and the phoenix fall outside the prohibition because they do not actually exist.
Byzantine Christianity witnessed two distinct periods of iconoclasm, both in the mid eighth and early ninth centuries. At the theological core of those conflicts was a question about the two natures of Jesus. Iconoclasts argued that no image could represent both the divine and the human natures simultaneously without either reducing Christ to a purely physical being, which was Nestorianism, or confusing the two natures into one, which was Monophysitism. Every icon, by this logic, was heretical by definition.
During the Protestant Reformation, Reformed and Calvinist churches, and especially the Puritans and certain Baptist congregations, moved to prohibit religious images altogether. The most dramatic single episode was the Beeldenstorm in the Netherlands in 1566, an aggressive wave of iconoclasm directed primarily at churches that were still Catholic.
The Roman historian Tacitus recorded that the Germanic tribes he observed refused to depict their gods in human form or on walls, considering the Heavens too great for such representation. Whether that applied to all Germanic peoples is uncertain. In the ancient Etruscan religion, the dii involuti, a group of gods superior to the ordinary pantheon who governed the infliction of disasters, were never named or depicted. Etruscan divination calendars list being visited with visions of the faces of gods as a negative event. Among some Australian Aboriginal communities, depicting a recently deceased person is prohibited under customary law, with mourning periods lasting from weeks to years, based on the belief that depiction will inhibit the passage of the dead to the Great Dreaming of the Ancestors.
In the Bahai Faith, the approach to images holds a distinctive tension. Depictions of God are prohibited, and the Bahai Houses of Worship contain no statues or images. But photographs and depictions of the Bab and Bahaulllah, considered Manifestations of God, are treated as precious rather than forbidden.
Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahai Faith, set out the terms of that treatment in a letter dated the 6th of December 1939: "There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahaullah, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes." In his Directives from the Guardian, Shoghi Effendi wrote of the portrait of the Bab as an inestimable privilege and blessing, noting that past generations were denied even a glimpse of the face of the Manifestation once he had passed on.
Two pictures of Bahaullah and a portrait of the Bab are on permanent display at the Bahai World Centre in the International Archives building, where they are viewed as part of organized pilgrimage. The distinction between reverent private viewing and public display reflects a broader principle that runs through many aniconic traditions: the problem is rarely the image itself, but the use and worship that surrounds it.
Common questions
What is aniconism and which religions practice it?
Aniconism is the cultural or religious absence of artistic representations of deities, prophets, or living beings. It is found across Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Bahai Faith, and various indigenous traditions, though the scope and strictness of the prohibition varies widely within each tradition.
What is the difference between aniconism and iconoclasm?
Aniconism is the absence or prohibition of images; iconoclasm is the active physical destruction of existing images. When aniconic prohibition is enforced by smashing or removing images already made, it becomes iconoclasm.
Does the Quran prohibit images of Muhammad?
The Quran does not explicitly prohibit the depiction of human figures; it condemns idolatry. Prohibitions against figurative representation come from the Hadith. Sunni exegetes from the 9th century onward increasingly interpreted these as categorical bans, while Shia communities and Sufi orders have held less stringent views.
Was early Buddhist art truly aniconic?
Scholars have described Buddhist art before the 1st century CE as aniconic, representing the Buddha through symbols such as an empty throne, a Bodhi tree, footprints, and a dharma wheel. In 1990, Susan Huntington challenged this view, arguing that many supposedly aniconic scenes were depictions of relic worship rather than absent Buddha figures; the debate among specialists continues.
Who first challenged the idea that Judaism is an aniconic religion?
David Kaufmann was the first scholar to challenge the assumption of Jewish aniconism. In 1878 he introduced the term "Jewish art" and used medieval Ashkenazi illuminated manuscripts to argue that the prohibition applied only where worship was involved, not to art generally.
What was the Beeldenstorm and how does it relate to aniconism?
The Beeldenstorm was an aggressive wave of iconoclasm in the Netherlands in 1566, during the Protestant Reformation. Reformed and Calvinist Protestants destroyed images in churches, with attacks directed primarily at churches that were still Catholic.
All sources
50 references cited across the entry
- 1bookAniconism in Greek AntiquityM. Gaifman — OUP Oxford — 2012
- 2bookCongress Volume Cambridge 1995J.A. Emerton — Brill — 2015
- 3bookAnimism in Rainforest and Tundra: Personhood, Animals, Plants and Things in Contemporary Amazonia and SiberiaM. Brightman et al. — Berghahn Books — 2012
- 4bookHistory of Art and Architecture: Volume TwoJ. Lacey — Sugar Creek — 2021
- 5bookHandbook of Culture and MigrationJ.H. Cohen et al. — Edward Elgar Publishing — 2021
- 6journalFrom Bodhisattva to Buddha: The Beginning of Iconic Representation in Buddhist ArtJu-Hyung Rhi — 1994
- 8inline(Huntington 1990) and here
- 19newsU.S. military, not Iraqis, behind toppling of statueDavid Zucchino — July 5, 2004
- 21webwww.webpak.net
- 24webFiqh & Beliefs: Istifa answersGrand Ayatollah Uzma Sistani
- 27webReza Abbasi Museum
- 28webPortraits
- 38newsHervé Clerc et Jack Kornfield : championnats de Bouddha libreRoger-Pol Droit — 7 July 2011
- 40web(Bland 2001:8)
- 41journal'The Breath of Every Living Thing': Zoocephali and the Language of Difference on the Medieval Hebrew PageElina Gertsman — 2023-09-01
- 42citationThe Cambridge History of JudaismKatrin Kogman-Appel — 2018
- 43citationAmbrosian BibleSarit Shalev-Eyni
- 44journalAnimal Affinities: Monsters and Marvels in the Ambrosian TanakhElina Gertsman — March 2022
- 45citationThe Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 6: The Middle Ages: The Christian WorldCambridge University Press — 2018
- 46webShulchan-Aruch – Chapter 11Torah.org
- 49bookDivining the Etruscan World: The Brontoscopic Calendar and Religious PracticeJean MacIntosh Turfa — Cambridge University Press — 2012