There are two arts which unfortunately had no great share in Arab Civilisation, i.e. acting and the plastic arts forms, painting and sculpture.
Like all other Eastern and Western peoples in ancient history, the Arabs did not know much about acting and the plastic arts. These two arts were not much known to civilised peoples. It follows that they were utterly unknown to uncivilised Bedouins.
In Greece, acting began with religious rituals during Dionysus ceremonies. It was limited in its initial stage, to dancing and singing. Then one more actor was added to fill up the time between dancing and singing by doing some acts and singing some hymns. The more actors were successively added, and acts were accordingly increased in one show. This development ended in the form of the theatrical play, as laid down by the ancient Greeks.
Nations, whose primary religious cults had no such rituals did not have
the chance to develop the art of acting on these lines. Arab society might
have had other reasons than those of worship, which blocked the development
of acting on social grounds. Acting is an art which is closely connected
with social life. Acting could not be conceived in a society which has
not a multitude of social aspects which
differ with the variety of work, trades, tastes and classes of the people.
Acting from the social standpoint is based on response between individuals
and families as and when their relationships are multiplied, and their
tastes and inclinations are variegated. Bedouin society did not have a
wide scope for this kind of multi form response between family and family,
and individual and individual. They well reflected their social life, whether
Bedouin or urban in the ballads, songs chivalrous sports, debates and boasting.
It was said : «In view of the lack of sympathy between the Arab and the animal, he did not represent creatures and paint them on buildings and paper as did the ancient Easterners».
Now that we are at the outset of discussing the taboo on pictures, it is worth mentioning that taboo was observed by many people in Asia Minor. It was vigorously advocated by a large number of the followers of the Eastern Roman Church, who were called «Iconoclast». Their call in the 7th century was a forerunner of the separation of the Eastern Church from the Western Church. However, the Western Church had after separation some staunch followers of those taboos. Had not the temples sponsored the arts of sculpture and painting it would have been uncertain that the social requirements of the European nations could have satisfied the needs of those two arts and supplied them with talented sculptors and painters.
In this connection, it may be said that the Arabs differed from the Europeans in the evolution of the arts of sculpture and painting just as the plan of the mosque differs from that of the church suggested by their respective cults.
There was no place in Islam for mediators between Allah and Man. It also had no place for the mystery of priesthood and its channel and the embodiment of Allah and saints. Furthermore, it is inconceivable in Islam that it sponsors those arts which cater for the decoration of the temple with paintings and statues. In effect there is no better incentive for the promotion of arts than the sponsorship of temples and the zeal for cults. Both greatly contributed to the promotion of architecture among Muslims in the same way as glorification of saints had contributed to the promotion of sculpture and painting among the Europeans.
The Mosque did not embrace paintings and statues, and consequently Islamic civilisation had no wide scope for them as the European civilisation has had.
But that did not hamper the rise of beautiful buildings and splendid domes, which were the bases for Arabesque architecture. Arabesque architecture can stand the comparison with the best arts of building in the past and at present.
The intuition of the Arabs - rather of the Easterners - had a particular trait which implied the independence of their style from the patterns from which the Arabs drew the art of building.
It is a mistake to state for instance - that the Byzantine style was the basis of that school which adopted that pattern of building in the East, because the Byzantine style was a characteristic trait of the East which distinguished it from the European styles such as the Gothic and Romanesque. Had there not been that suggestive trait of the East, there would not have been that distinction between the syle of Byzantine architecture and that of the Germans or Italians.
We believe that this distinct style of the Arabs prevented its borrowing by the European nations which were connected with the Islamic civilisation. This is due to the fact that Arab styles were characteristic of either the mosques or the regions, and both could not be drawn into the European art in view of the difference of climate, cults and religious rituals.
The famous scholar and researcher, the late Ahmad Taimour Pasha, brought forward in his valuable book on portayal among the Arabs, hundreds of verses which imply that painting and sculpture were widespread among the Arabs. These two arts were used in the decoration of buildings, golden ornaments, in the dying of texiles manufactured by Muslims. He gave the names of many Arab portrayers who were addicted to the carving of drawings and sculpturing of metallic and stone statues.
We cannot dedicate more space in this chapter for evidence and examples of portraits and portrayers in Arab civilisation. We are only interested in pointing out that the Arabs were not alone in following behind the ancient advanced nations in the two arts of painting and sculpture and that they were not lacking in the relevant artistic sense and vital emotions. Their artistic taste remained a long time a pattern for the Europeans which they adopted in building palaces, houses, and markets. It was not restricted to the circles of art and its principles.