If you travel through Turkey, Middle East and much of northern India, you are mightily impressed by the Islamic art and architecture. You also hear about the famous poets and artists patronized by Islamic courts. Overall Islam has had a very rich and diverse artistic heritage and a tradition of court patronage to artists.
But if you look at the areas that are governed by Islamic Law (Shariya), those regimes frown upon art in any form, while quoting Koran.
How and when did this change in attitudes to art happen? And why? Also, is the reference to Koran real or just for political gain? If real, how did the Islamic courts patronage arts then, and if for political convenience, why do people buy into this today?
Please note that I am asking this in genuine curiosity, and do not intend to hurt anyone's religious beliefs.
Thats a misrepresentation of Islamic Theology, its incorrect to say shariah forwns on art of any form. I want you to think for a moment about all the Islamic art you have ever seen or heard. I bet you are mostly thinking of beautiful buildings like The Taj Mahal, the Dome of the Rock, the Sulieman Mosque in Istanbul, or the beautiful poetry of Rumi and Hafez. Now think some more, have you seen a Islamic sculpture? or an Islamic painting that wasn't calligraphy? Most likely not
Thats because in general, there are arts that are generally considered prohibitive and those that are not. "Idol making" is generally considered forbidden, this historically included sculptures of animate beings, and to a somewhat smaller degree any 2d representation of anything with a face. So Islamic authorities always frowned on those arts, but even today in the only two countries in the world that claim to put shariah into action (Saudi Arabia and Iran) architecture and poetry are seen as great arts and the authorities do not suppress them. Many historical leaders used financing the building of beautiful mosques as examples of their prestige and wealth and to show off to other rulers.