The story speaks of a bidder who viewed Shah-Nama, the Persian Book of Kings and while reading drew lines over their throats and poked out their eyes simply because the figuration represented inside went against his beliefs. His actions then resulted in him getting lashed and stoned, which caused further complications toward the issue of figurations regarding Muslims. The outcome of this adds onto the issue of figuration regarding Muslims. Another Iconoclastic moment that Flood refers to was in opposition to the art that was produced by earlier Muslims which also became a target . This instance occurred during the Delhi period in the fourteenth century and ordered from Sultan Firuz Shah Tughluq. He ordered that the following items must be defaced: saddles, bridles, collars, censors, goblets and cups, and anything else that represented figures and devices. These two examples are what Flood uses to help further explain expressive and instrumental iconoclasm and their differences. Expressive iconoclasm can be seen through the example of the bidder and the one with Sultan Firuz Shah Tughluq is a representation of instrumental iconoclasm. Flood goes on to define the two terms and point out that their difference revolves around motivation. Expressive iconoclasm is represented through an individual who pleased with the destruction of the figuration, the act itself of destruction, and the end product. Whereas instrumental iconoclasm is where an individual carries out a specific action to achieve a greater goal. It was proven that during the medieval Islamic period, figurations were not completely destroyed, only altered in hopes of eliminating their
The story speaks of a bidder who viewed Shah-Nama, the Persian Book of Kings and while reading drew lines over their throats and poked out their eyes simply because the figuration represented inside went against his beliefs. His actions then resulted in him getting lashed and stoned, which caused further complications toward the issue of figurations regarding Muslims. The outcome of this adds onto the issue of figuration regarding Muslims. Another Iconoclastic moment that Flood refers to was in opposition to the art that was produced by earlier Muslims which also became a target . This instance occurred during the Delhi period in the fourteenth century and ordered from Sultan Firuz Shah Tughluq. He ordered that the following items must be defaced: saddles, bridles, collars, censors, goblets and cups, and anything else that represented figures and devices. These two examples are what Flood uses to help further explain expressive and instrumental iconoclasm and their differences. Expressive iconoclasm can be seen through the example of the bidder and the one with Sultan Firuz Shah Tughluq is a representation of instrumental iconoclasm. Flood goes on to define the two terms and point out that their difference revolves around motivation. Expressive iconoclasm is represented through an individual who pleased with the destruction of the figuration, the act itself of destruction, and the end product. Whereas instrumental iconoclasm is where an individual carries out a specific action to achieve a greater goal. It was proven that during the medieval Islamic period, figurations were not completely destroyed, only altered in hopes of eliminating their