Jonathan G. Katz (Editor)-Architecture as Symbol and Self-Identity-Aga Khan Award for Architecture(1980)

7/28/2019 Jonathan G. Katz (Editor)-Architecture as Symbol and Self-Identity-Aga Khan Award for Architecture(1980)

1/117


2/117

The Aga K han A ward for Architecture

Architecture asSymbol and Self-Identity

Proceedingsof Seminar Fourin the seriesArchitectural Transformations in the Islamic W orldHeld in Fez, MoroccoO ctober 9-12, 1979


3/117

Contents

Seminar Participants IVIntroduction viiiRenata Holod

1 Form: A Vocabulary and Grammar of SymbolsSymbols and Signs in Islamic Architecture 1Oleg GrabarSymbolism in its Regional and Contemporary Context 12Dogan KubanThe Visual Language of Symbolic Form:A Preliminary Study of Mosque Architecture 18Nader ArdalanComments 36

2 Function: Concepts and PracticeIslamic Philosophy and the Fine Arts 43Muhsin S. MahdiComments 49Islam, Urbanism and Human Existence Today 51Mohammed ArkounComments 53The Rab': A Type of Collective Housing in CairoDuring the Ottoman Period 55Andre RaymondComments 62The View from Within 63Hildred GeertzComments 70Fez: The Ideal and the Reality of the Islamic City 74Personnel of the Fez Master Plan and EditorsComments 77


4/117

3

4

Fragmentation: The Search for IdentityCommentsIn Search of an Islam-Initiated Architectural Identity in IndonesiaAhmad SadaliThe Internal Dialogue of Islam in Southeast AsiaAbdurrahman Wahid

Formulation: A Discussion of CriteriaComments

Concluding RemarksHis Highness the Aga Khan

Resume

Editor andProduction Manager . . Jonathan G. KatzContributing Editor . . . . . . . . Robert MillerProduction Consultant . . . . . . . Linda SafranEditorial Consultants . . . . . . . Renata Holod

Hasan-Uddin Khan

Graphic Consultants Herman and Lees Associates,Cambridge, Mass

8187

91

92

101

102

Cover Illustration Detail of inscription and mosaicdesign from the madrasa al-'A!{iir in ("the perfumers'quarter"), built in 1323 in Fez Photograph byDeborah Allen Printed by Smith -Edwar ds-Du nlap Co , Philadelphia, Pa

The Aga Khan Awards 1980


5/117

iv

His Highness the Aga KhanH er Highness the Begum Aga KhanHis Highness Prince A myn Aga Khan

Mr. Nader Ardalan

75 Fisher Avenue

A rchitectIRAN

Bro okline, MA 02146 U.S.AM ember, Award Stee ring Committee.Principal in Mandala Internati onal.Past lecturer at Ha rvard School of A rc hitecture

and Planning.A uthor with L. B akhtiar of A Senseof Unity,

1973, and a number of arch it ectural papers

Professor MohammedA rk ou n

3, Place de !'Etoile 91210 D raveil, France

Histor ia nALGERIA

Professor of Arab ic and Arabic Literature a tthe Sorbonne , Paris.N um erous books and art icles on Islamic his toryand thought including Pelerinage aIa Mecque,1977.

Sem inar Participants

Professor Najm'oudDine Bammate

198, Rue de Rivoli75001 Paris, F rance

SociologistA F G H A N I S T A N

Professo r of Islamic Sociology, Universite deParis.

D eputy Assistant Director, Culture andCommunic ation Sector of U N E S C O .

Autho r of many publication s on Islamic cultu re .

Mr. Am ir A. Bhatia

H ig h Holborn House50-54 High HolbornLo ndon WC1, England

ManagementConsult antU.K.

Resident Governor, The Institute of Ism ailiStudies, L td .

Chairman and M an aging Director of ForbesCampbell Group, an export finance organization of fourteen companies.

M r. Anthony Bradfor d Inform ation OfficerUK.

Secretariat of H . H. th e A g a K h anAiglemont60270 Gouvieux, FranceSpecial Assistant for Communications to His

Highness the Aga Khan .

Professo r TitusBurckhard t

1, Chemin d'En-Vaux

Philosopher/Archit ecturalHistorianSWITZERLAND

1093 La Conversion S/ Lutry, Sw itzerlandM ember, Award M aster JuryAdviso r to the Fez Master Plan.Authorof The Ar t of Islam : Language and

Meaning, 1976, and Fes, Stadt des Islam,1960.


6/117

Mr. Garr Campbell LandscapeArchitect/PlanningConsultantU.S ASecretariat of H. H. the Aga KhanAiglemont60270 Gouvieux, FranceMember, Award Steering CommitteeVarious site design and planning projects inFrance, U.S.A., Pakistan, India, Iran.

Sir Hugh Casson

35 Victoria RoadLondon W8 4RH, England

ArchitectU.K.

Member, Award Steering Committee.Senior Partner in architectural firm.President, Royal Academy of Arts, U.K.Formerly Professor of Interior Design at theRoyal College of Art.

Mr. Charles Correa

9 Matthew RoadBombay 400 004, India

ArchitectINDIA

Member, Award Steering Committee.Chairman, Housing Renewal and HousingBureau, Bombay; consulting architect forNew Bombay.In private practice since 1958.Author of many publications, including Archi-tecture in Dry Hot Climates, 1973.Visiting lec turer at several universities.

Mr. Michael Curtis JournalistU.K.Secretariat of H. H. the Aga KhanAiglemont60270 Gouvieux, FranceExecutive Aide to His Highness the Aga Khanfor Education, Health and Housing.

Seminar Participants

Mr. Hassan Fathy

4 Darb el LabbanaCitadelCairo, Egypt

ArchitectEGYPT

Member, Award Steering Committee.Work on indigenous building and IslamicarchitecturePublications include Architecture for the Poor,1973.

Professor HildredGeertz AnthropologistU.S.A.Department of AnthropologyPrinceton UniversityPrinceton, NJ 08544 U.S.A.Professor, Department of Anthropology, Princeton University.Extensive Field Research in Indonesia andMoroccoCo-author of Meaning and Order in Moroccan

Society, 1979.

Professor Oleg Grabar

Fogg Museum of Art

ArchitecturalHistorianU.S.A.

Harvard UniversityCambridge, MA 02138 U.S A.Member, Award Steering Committee.Chairman, Department of Fine Arts, HarvardUniversity.Specialist in Islamic art and architecture.Publications include The Formation of Islamic

Art, 1973 and The Alhambra, 1978.

Professor RenataHolod ArchitecturalHistorianCANADA

The Aga Khan Award for Architecture3624 Science CentrePhiladelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A.First Award Convenor (1977-79).The History of Art Departm ent, University ofPennsylvaniaSpecialist in Islamic architecture and urbanhistory.

v


7/117

vi

Mr. Muzharul Islam

Vastakulabid3, Paribagh, RamnaDacca-2, Bangladesh

Architect/TeacherBANGLADESH

Member, Award Master JuryIn private practice since 1964; projects includeGovernment Institute of Arts, Public Libraryand polytechnic institutesClosely involved in the realization of the NewCapital, Dacca.Past President of Pakistan Institute of Architects and Bangladesh Institute of Architects.

Mr. Hasan-Uddin Khan Architect/PlannerPAKISTANThe Aga Khan Award for Architecture3624 Science CentrePhiladelphia, PA 19104 U.S A.Second Award Convenor (1979-80)Practiced in the U.K. and operated own firm inKarachi.Work in Pakistan on low income settlements.


Professor DoganKuban

Dolay BagiAnadoluhisariIstanbul, Turkey

ArchitecturalHistorianTURKEY

Professor at the Department of Restoration andPreservation, Istanbul Technical UniversityAuthor of several books on Turkish and IslamicarchitecturePresident of the Institute of History of Architecture and Restoration.

Professor AptullahKuran

B o g a z i ~ i UniversitesiBebek P K 2Istanbul, Turkey

Architect/ArchitecturalHistorianTURKEY

Member, Award Master JuryChairman, Department of Humanities,University of BosphorusAuthor of The Mosque in Early OttomanArchitecture.Currently writing a book on the life and worksof the architect Sinan

Professor Muhsin S.Mahdi Specialist inIslamic PhilosophyUSA.

Center for Middle Eastern StudiesHarvard University1737 Cambridge StreetCambridge, MA 02138 U.S A.James Richard Jewett Professor of Arabic and

Director of the Center for Middle EasternStudies, Harvard University.

Professor WilliamPorter Architect/Urban PlannerU.S.A.M.I.T. School of Architecture and Planning77 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA 02139 U S.A.Member, Award Steering CommitteeDean of the School of Architecture andPlanning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Professor AndreRaymond HistorianFRANCEUniversite de ProvenceDepartment d'Etudes Islamiques29, Avenue Robert Schuman13621 Aix-en-Provence, FranceProfessor, Universite de Provence.Numerous publications on eighteenth-centuryCairo.

Ms. Mildred F. Schmertz Architect/JournalistU.S.A.Architectural Record Magazine1221 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10020 U.S.A.Executive EditorWrites frequently on contemporary Islamicarchitecture1977 Recipient of National Magazine Award ofthe Columbia University Graduate School ofJournalism, for outstanding achievement inspecialized journalism.

Dr. Ismail Serageldin

The World Bank

Planning SpecialistEGYPT

1818 H Street, N.WWashington, D.C. 20433 U.S.AChief, Technical Assistance & Special StudiesDivision, The World Bank.Has identified, managed and appraisednumerous projects throughout the GulfStates.

Dr. Mona AnisSerageldin Architect/PlanningConsultantEGYPT

27A Fayerweather StreetCambridge, MA 02138 U.S.A.SeniorAssociate, Nash-Vigier, Inc., PlanningConsultantsCurrent projects include low cost housingschemes in Egypt, Sudan and Saudi Arabia.


8/117

Mr. Soedjatmoko Diplomat/CulturalAffairs ExpertINDONESIA

National Development Planning Agency2, J alan Taman SuropatiJakarta, Pusat, IndonesiaMember, Award Master JuryAdvisor, Social and Cultural Affairs, National

Development Planning Agency, Indonesia.Former Indonesian Ambassador to the UnitedStates.Rector, The United Nations University.


Mr. AbdurrahmanWahid

Educator/SociologistINDONESIALembaga Studi Pembangunan17th Floor, Gedung ArthaolkaGeneral Sudierman Avenue 2Jakarta, IndonesiaDirector, Pesantren Ciganjur, Jakarta.Consultant on community development at theInstitute of Economic and Social Research,Jakarta.

Proceedings ContributorProfessor Ahmad Sadali

Jl . Bukit Dago Utara 119Bandung, Indonesia

Art HistorianINDONESIA

vii

Chairman of the Indonesian Alumni of the FineArts and Designers at the Institute of Tech-nology, BandungFormer Deputy Vice Chancellor of the Instituteof Technology, Bandung.


9/117


10/117


11/117

Form:A Vocabulary and Grammar of Symbols

Symbols and Signs in Islamic ArchitectureOleg Grabar

Le probleme central et le plus ardu resteevidemment celui de /'interpretation. Enprincipe, on peut toujours poser Ia questionde Ia validite d'une hermeneutique. Par desrecoupements multiples, au moyen desassertions claires (textes, rites, monumentsfigures) et des allusions ademi voilees, onpeut demontrer sur pieces ce que 'veutdire' tel ou tel symbole. Mais on peut aussiposer le probleme d'une autre far.;on: ceuxqui utilisent les symboles se rendent-ilscompte de toutes leurs implicationstheoriques? Lorsque, par exemple, enetudiant le symbolisme de l'Arbrecosmique, nous disons que cet Arbre setrouve au 'Centre du Monde', est-ce quetaus les individus appartenant ades societesqui connaissent de tels Arbres cosmiquessont egalement conscients du symbolismeintegral du 'Centre'? Mais Ia validite dusymbole en tant que forme de connaissancene depend pas du degre de comprehensionde tel ou tel individu. Des textes et desmonuments figures nous prouventabondamment que, au mains pour certainsindividus d'une societe archai"que, lesymbolisme du 'Centre' etait transparentdans sa totalite; le reste de La societe secontentait de 'participer' au symbolisme.II est d' ailleurs malaise de preciser leslimites d'une telle participation: elle varieen fonction d'un nombre indetermine defacteurs. Tout ce qu'on peut dire, c' est queI'actualisation d'un symbole n'est pasmecanique: elle est en relation avec lestensions et les alternances de Ia vie sociale,en derniere instance avec les rythmescosmiques. 1

M. Eliade

Much of what follows consists in ramblingviews, opinions and interpretationsdeveloped over the years by an outsidertrying to understand a world which is nothis own. They tend, therefore, to seekgeneral and abstract meanings in what hasbeen a concrete and personal experience.This is not wrong by itself, but its dangeris that unique cultural experiences canmuch too easily be transformed intomeaningless and obvious generalities. Theopposite dangers are either that a uniqueexperience becomes so specific as to beunavailable for sharing and evenexplaining or that an artificial search forpresumably universal values falsifies thetruth of any individual's culture orexperience. I hope I have avoided thesepitfalls, but my main concern is that whatfollows be construed as a statement of thetruth or of a doctrine. They are merelypartial and questioning signals toward theformulation of a way to understandsymbolism in a specific culture. At the endan "afterword" puts together someimplications of my remarks which haveworried me as I read and reread them. I tseems more and more evident to me thatdiscussions of symbols and signs are farmore complicated than, in our managerialaloofness, we imagined them to be.

The ProblemThere are two reasons, one general, theother specific, for raising the question ofsymbols and signs. The general reason is


12/117


13/117

3

only one aspect of the impact. One couldhave chosen something as concrete asinheritance law and the development ofbuilding space in cities, but the information would not be easily available and thesubject is hardly exciting. In proposing todeal with signs and symbols, the assumedsocial and psychological need to symbolizeprovides a different framework withinwhich to consider Islamic architecture.The questions can be formulated in thefollowing way:1) Is there an Islamic system of visuallyperceptible symbols and signs?2) How universally Islamic is such asystem and what are its variants?3) What are the sources of the system, therevealed and theologically or pietisticallydeveloped statement of the faith, or theevolution of visual forms over fourteenhundred years?4) In what fashion and how successfullywere signs and symbols transformed intobuilding forms?5) How valid is the experience andmemory of the past for the present andthe future?

Old ApproachesThe need for an approach derives fromexisting literature. To my knowledge, onlytwo studies deal overtly and formally withsymbolism and signs in Islamic culture andclaim, at least in theory, some kind ofcompleteness.One is Rudi Paret, Symbolik des Islam(Stuttgart, 1958). Modestly restricted to"observation on the meaning of symbols(Symbolik) within the sphere of theMuslim world" (p. 9) and limited toreligious matter, it tends to be descriptiverather than interpretative. Paret does,however, make an important distinctionbetween primary and secondary symbols,the former being direct and immediatetransformations of whatever is beingsymbolized (a complete set or system), thelatter being more fragmentary or diverse,

Symbols and Signs in Islamic Architecture

at times a synecdoche (part used forwhole) and at other times in multiplelayers (as when a mystic headgear made oftwo pieces symbolizes all binary oppositeslike Paradise-Hell, Life-Death). I t is onlywhen dealing with mysticism that Paret,under the impact of Hellmut Ritter (onwhom more below), moves beyond thedescriptive to the visual symbolism of theArabic alphabet. He does not, however,talk about visual architectural implications.The second study is by JacquesWaardenburg, "Islam Studied as a Symboland Signification System," HumanioraIslamica vol. II (1974). A theoretical essayon method, it asks appropriate questions(note in particular an interesting queryabout Islam as an ideology rather than asa religion) but loses itself by being somethodologically abstract that it fails inproviding answers and even in indicatinghow these answers could in fact be found.Not even a nod is extended in thedirection of visual forms.Much more work has been done with theuniquely rich subfield of Islamic andespecially Persian mysticism. The grandmaster of the field is Hellmut Ritter,whose Das Meer der Seele (Leiden, 1955)is one of the most elaborate and difficultsystems of interpreting mystical thought.His sutcessor, hardly less complicated, isHenri Corbin, some of whose works existin English. An excellent introduction to allmystical matters is Annemarie Schimmel,Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill,1975). An interesting and occasionallyquite provocative discussion of relatedissues around a single theme and with abroader base than Iranian Sufism or Ibnal-'Arabi: can be found in M. Arkoun andothers, L'Etrange et le Merveilleux dansI'Islam Medieval (Paris, 1978), theproceedings of a lively colloquium. Themost interesting aspect of these studies forour purposes is that they extend beyondtraditional theological or esoteric interpretations into science and technology (S. H.Nasr, Islamic Science, London, 1976) andarchitecture (N. Ardalan and L. Bakhtiar,The Sense of Unity, Chicago, 1973). Theyowe little to broad symbolic theories

except to an implied (Jungian, I guess)assumption tha t certain kinds of formaltransformations (i.e. , not only the visibleform but its finite or infinite modificationsaccording to one or more logical orparalogical methods) are innate within thepsyche and often affected by certainphysical or cultural circumstances (e.g.,the land of Iran with its ecologicalproperties, Muslims brought up in Sufitraditions).In most of these studies, just as in severalworks by T. Burckhardt (Sacred Art inEast and West, London, 1967, and Art ofIslam, London, 1976), which are not asdeeply affected by Iranian culture, I seethree inherent difficulties:1) Nowhere is there an explicit statementof the relationship between data(measurable and quantifiable in time andspace) and interpretation; in other words,as opposed to the works of philologistsand even philosophers like Ritter orCorbin, there is an absence of scientificprecision. Therefore, many of theconclusions seem premature.2) The specifically Islamic character offorms is rarely clear or specific enough,except for calligraphy which is mentionedas unique but never described; in otherwords the Islamic component is eitherabsent from what are basic human needsconditioned by local limitations (no stonein Iran, colder weather in Anatolia than inEgypt, and so on) or else it is simply asheathing, a removable skin which is anexpression of taste, not a symbol of thefaith or the culture; this last point may befurther strengthened by the undeniablefact that buildings (as opposed to objectsin metal or paintings) were constantlyrepaired and refurbished to fit a prevalenttaste and by the more debatable theory ofearlier decades that visual expression wasa sin in Muslim eyes.3) The contemporary context is almostalways missing; we may not yet havediscovered a Suger or a Procopius intraditional Islamic culture, but we do havedocuments of contemporary witnesseswhich would prevent the unavoidableimpression of modern constructs, perhaps


14/117


15/117


16/117

New York, 1964), and Ibn Khaldiin'sMuqaddimah (tr. F. Rosen thal, 3 vols.,New York, 1958, esp. II , pp. 233ff.,357-367), or Ibn Fadlan's description o fthe Volga Bulghars, my answer isnegative . While alien lands are a t timesid entified by the peculiarities of their visual expression (for instance, nearly allde scriptions of India in classical times), Isee no evidence of concrete visual symbolswhich would be considered as uniquely Muslim. The ex ception o f the minbar intenth century geographical texts indicatesa certain kindof administrative statusra ther than a reference to a concreteobject . The only other exceptio n is theKa 'ba which by definition is a uniquem onument. This is not to say that thereare no M uslim symbols and signs, but theyco nsist less in visually perceptible featuresthan in memories of m en and events: thepl ace where something took place orwhe re someone did something . Theliterary genre of the kittib al-ziytirat(guidebooks to holy and mem orableplaces) which began in the twelfth centuryonly strengthen s the hypothesis that th eMuslim tradition identified what is sacredor holy to it in a denoting rather than connoting fashion, i .e. , in terms ofmemorable associations and generalizedphysical shapes (oval, rectangle) ra therthan of concrete visual forms. In otherwords, and with occasional exceptions(like the ab wab al-birr, "gates of piety" inearly four teenth century Iran) , there is no sy mbolic iconography of Islam ic architecture tobe der ived from texts, as thereis, for instance, in C hristian architecture.Is there an Koranic or early Hadithsy mbolic system with visual associations?This is a difficult question to discussbecause it is difficult todevelop anappropr iate method of dealing with it.Should one simply analyze the Koranictext as such? Or should one seek thefrequency of use of certain passages overthe centuries? For instance, one of them ost consistently used verses both inarchitectural inscriptions and in depictingDiv ine Pow er is the magnificent Thro neVerse (II, 256). But it is no t the only


Samarqand, U.S.S.R.: Giir -i MlrPhoto: R Holod

6


17/117

7

instance in the Revelation of strikinglyeffective depictions either of Divine Mightor of God's Throne. Some of them wereoccasionally used on monuments, as, forinstance, VII, 52, in the north dome ofIsfahan or LXVII, 1-5, found in the Hallof the Ambassadors in the Alhambra. Inboth instances the use of an unusualverse serves to explain the cupola'smeaning, but can one conclude that thesearchitectural meanings are inherent in theKoranic passage or that the monumentsserved to represent or otherwise symbolizethe Holy Writ?Another interesting passage is XXIV,35-8, the "verses of light," which dosuggest a symbolic physical settingreflecting Divine Presence. The passagewas frequently used in mi/Jrilbs, but thelater traditional Muslim mosquevocabulary hardly ever used the terms ofthe Koranic passage. This peculiarity doesnot preclude the existence of a Koranbased symbolic system; it merely questionsits consistent validity for architecturalhistory.We know very little about the frequencyand consistency of Koranic quotations. Ipropose the hypothesis that the symbolicor iconographic use of the Koran inIslamic art nearly always followed thedevelopment of a symbolic or iconographicneed. Symbols, signs or meanings werediscovered in the Koran but, at least as faras the arts are concerned, do not activelyderive from it; in other words, I suggestthere is no "iconography" of the Koran.Matters are obviously quite different intheology or law.How culture-bound is the rich Islamicliterary tradition of opulent princelydwellings?A story from the Thousand and OneNights such as the "City of Brass" reflectsan unbridled imagination about amagnificent palace. It contains, no doubt,the esoteric meaning of a difficult questfor Truth or Reality through secret andmysterious doors (like the ubiquitous yamiftal] at-abwab, "0 Opener of Doors,"in later Persian miniatures), but its detailsand its external mood are all of a brilliant


secular world. Should one interpret suchstories as simply stylistically Islamic, i.e.,as universal archetypes which haveacquired culture-bound details? Or arethey key reflections of a uniquely Muslimvision of sensuous beauty-paradisiacperhaps, but more likely fruits of a uniqueimagination formed by the confluence ofan egalitarian faith and the reality of richand isolated dynamic centres like Samarraor Topkapi?How should we interpret technical andespecially mathematical treatises applied toarchitecture or decoration?Few of these texts have been properlypublished or translated, but, where available, as in the very recent book of M. S.Bulatov, Geometricheskaia Garmonizatziiav Arhitektury (Moscow, 1978), what isstriking to me is that the subtle andcomplicated mathematical formulas are notpresented as illustrations, symbols or signsof a faith or even of a cultural identity,but as practical solutions to architecturaland ornamental requirements.Hence, is it legitimate to suggest aculturally accepted symbolism for visualforms as long as, in the highly verbalculture of traditional Islam, written sourcesgive it explicit mention so rarely andrequire an esoteric approach to literaturefor demonstration?The obvious exception lies in the art ofwriting, where, thanks to the work ofA. Schimmel and F. Rosenthal amongothers, it can clearly be demonstrated thata whole range of meanings, from directsign to most elaborate symbol, had beendeveloped, thought out and accepted. I amfar less certain whether such matters astheories of colour in mystical thought(Corbin), for instance, actually did correspond to the uses of colour in artisticcreativity. But this, perhaps, is simply amatter of insufficient research.To sum up these remarks on writtensources seems fairly easy within thepresent state of our knowledge. Except forthe Arabic alphabet, there was nocoherent, consistent and reasonably panIslamic acceptance of visually perceived

symbols; there was no clearly identifiablesense, even, of forms considered to beone's own, culturally discrete. It may,therefore, be possible to propose thattraditional Islamic culture identified itselfthrough means other than visual: thesounds of the city, the call to prayer, theWord of the Revelation but not its forms,the memories of men and events. I f valid(and it is, I am sure, subject to criticism),this conclusion would suggest for thecontemporary scene that it is not formswhich identify Islamic culture and byextension the Muslim's perception of hisarchitecture, but sounds, history and amode of life.To this statement intended primarily topromote discussion, I should like to attachthree codicils. One is that there is somemethodological danger in assuming tooeasily that written sources are theparadigms by which a culture saw itself;written sources reflect in large part theworld of the literati, and neither St.Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinasprovide much information about theformation of early Christian art or ofGothic architecture. The importance ofwritten sources lies in the parallelism theyprovide for visual phenomena and, to asmaller degree, in showing a time's characteristic concerns which contribute to thetaste and will for creating monuments. Mysecond remark is that written sourcesfrom the early Hadith onward provide anenormous amount of information in tworelated areas: the vocabulary of makinganything from a textile to a building andhence the basic meaningful units (themorphemes) of visual forms, an areawhose study has hardly begun, andjudgments on changes of taste. Forinstance, a comparison between Ibn Jabayr(twelfth century) and Ibn BaHii!a(fourteenth century) describing the sameparts of the Muslim world shows the samemonuments and holy places in suchdifferent ways. Written sources do help inunderstanding the vernacular, thecommon, more easily than the unique inart, probably because the highest literatiwere often visual illiterates or at bestvisual vulgarians, a phenomenon which is


18/117

peculiar neither to the Muslim world norto the past.Finally, I have only alluded to writtensources as essentially synchronicdocuments, with the obvious exception ofthe Koranic Revelation shown as aconstant and consistent inspiration andjustification of tastes, moods and function.There could be a diachronic analysis ofliterary sources seeking to find commonand repeated themes and motifs; it is adangerous kind of analysis, for it can tooeasily find consistency by comparingfeatures which are not true parellels (as,for instance, both Persian and Arabicpoetry, where I have often wonderedwhether metric and thematic consistencyover the centuries is in fact what wasprized at the time of creation of a newwork of art). Such diachronic analyses,which may have been attempted withoutmy being aware of them, could be of greatimportance in identifying consistentcultural threads.

Approach Three: The MonumentsI shall be briefer in discussing monuments,as some of them will be discussed morefully later in the seminar. Keeping in mindthe broad questions raised at thebeginning of these remarks, I would liketo propose four points for discussion.


them. Interesting though they may be tothe historian, these monuments are ofsecondary significance for our purposes,because their uniqueness is more important than their typological set.Proposition II . There are several instancesof what I would like to call restrictedsymbolic cultural continuity in architecture. There is, for example, the largehypostyle mosque, a unique creation ofthe seventh century which solved severalfunctional requirements of Iraqi Muslimcommunities. This type became a regional

8

one in some areas (Fertile Crescent,Arabia, Muslim West) but it also becamesymbolic of the introduction of Islam intonew areas. Early Iranian mosques (this isa somewhat controversial topic at themoment for complex archeological reasonsnot pertinent to this discussion), earlyAnatolian ones and early Indian ones tendto adopt a form identified with early andpure Islam. Another example is theclassical Ottoman mosque, whose largedome flanked by minarets and usuallypreceded by a courtyard became a symbol

Proposition I. The Muslim world didcreate a number of monuments of art andarchitecture which are uniquely chargedwith symbols: the Ka'ba, the Dome of theRock, the Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri'sthrone of Akbar, and perhaps a few others(the mausoleum of Oljaytu in Sultaniyah,shrine of Lutfallah in Isfahan) once someone undertakes to study them properly.But, in all instances known to me so farexcept the Ka'ba (which is in a way an"uncreated" monument), the depth ofmeaning with which the monument wascreated did not survive the time of itscreation or was modified, as with theDome of the Rock, which grew in reli-gious connotations as the centuries went Afyon, Turkey: interior of hypostyle mosque (c. 1272 A D.)by, or with the Taj Mahal, which lost Photo: M Niksarl!


19/117


20/117


21/117


22/117

Sym bolism is founded not in a mysteriousrelation between the sign and the contentsof the human mind, b ut between an objectand a gesture, and an action and itsinfluence upon the receptive organism .

L . MalinowskiI was fortunate to read Prof . Grabar 'spaper before trying to put down my ow nthoughts. Grabar raises mos t of th e ques-tions relevant to symbolism in Islam withpar ticular emphasis on Islamic architec -ture. I have soug ht to answer or elabo rateand sometimes to contradictor criticize hisideas in order to clarify the or ienta t ion ofth e overall investigation.G rabar begins by asking whether there isan Islamic system of visually perceptiblesymbols and signs, how un iversally Islamicsuch a system is, an d what its variantsmight be. I phrase this question som ewhatdifferently. In the great variety and wealthof forms in the Muslim world, are there un iversally perceptible visual symbols? Acivilization as rich and continuous as theIslamic civilization has no doubt created amultitude o f symbolic systems within itsdomain. Can such systems be considereduniversally valid?

A Case Example: The M inaretWe may examine th e problem of th e universality of arch itec tural symbolism bychoosing a pro m inent example: theminaret. I t is emblematic of the mosquebecause it is a functional part of it. Byex tension of th is function it can be takenas the symbol o f prayer, the sy mbol of theIslamic town and ultim ately of Islam itself.Yet there is no specific prescribed fo rm forth e minaret. T herefore , not the fo rm ofthe minare t but thefact that it serves anIslamic function is w ha t makes it symbolic.The particular shape of the minaret isacknowledged and accepted by th ose whoshare the. culture in which it was created .For persons living outside certain culturalparam eters, a min aret is merely a tower.Giralda in Seville has no religious sig-nificance for Turkish peasants.

Symbolism in Its Regional andC ontemporary C ontextDogan Kuban

If

Delhi, India: detail of he Friday Mosque showing minaret and domePhoto: D. Sareen!Aga Khan Awards

12


23/117


24/117


25/117


26/117


27/117

17 Symbolism in its Regi onal and Contemporary Context

privat e residen ce is ves ted in its owner. Inth e case ofindividu al house s, therefore ,the neces sary prer ogatives of daily life are greater than any symbol ic import ance .Any symbolic value inheren t in a housefo rm com es from its long use, from itsbecomin g a para digm of some experience or qu al ity of life . When this form , whose val ue is so overtly ex perienti al, does n otfulfill th e exigencies of changed circum-stances, it is di fficult to interfere with th edem ands of its owners that it be ch anged.In the past, this change in d e m a n dasreflected in form occurre d smooth lybec au se the additions or re pla cementswere ofa si milar and familiar quality. Today, ho wever, the rep la cement is likelyto be tot ally forei gn in nature . Thesu per iority of the West ern im ag e inarc hitecture is not, however, a product ofthe experie nce of generations. I t is derivedfrom th e politica l and ec onomic superi-or ity of an al ien worl d which imposes itselfby sheer force. This is clearly a diffe rentkin d of sy mbolism.W hen we speak of im plicit symbolism in th e forms of the past, we refer to th e in trinsic qu ality of the nativ e buildin gprocess which developed very slow ly. T h i ~develo pment m ay even have been im -per ceptible in a norm al hum an life sp an .W ith m odern symbolism , the story isentire ly different . Therefore , anyar gument about archi tectural symbolismwill be onsure gro und only if all par-ticipants in the debate share clear andco m m on defini tions of the mean ing ofsymbolism . Symbolism is sub ject tote mpora l and spatial delim itation an dshould be considered only in p rop ercontex t.

Aksaray, Turkey: Su ltan Han, a Seljuk caravanserai.De tail of main portalPhoto: M Niksarll


28/117


29/117


30/117

The Visual Language of Symbolic Form: A Preliminary Study of Mosque Architecture 20

the growth in stature of the religion, hascreated the need periodically to expandand elaborate the surroundings of theKa'ba. Originally, at the time of theProphet, the Ka'ba, the associatedZamzam Well and the station of Abrahamwere located in a small, open courtyard,forty metres in diameter, surrounded byhouses of the city of Mecca. Gradually,the space was enlarged to include othersymbolic objects such as several minbarsand the four pavilions of prayer representing the four schools of Islamicthought. Finally, an arcade and mosqueemerged to encircle the Ka'ba. This wascompletely rebuilt by Sinan in the sixteenth century in a most modest manner.The Masjid al-Haram of the Ottomanperiod remained basically unchanged fornearly four hundred years until the recentmajor extension and modifications completed by the Government of SaudiArabia. Today, the open space measuresnearly 150 by 300 metres and the newMasjid al-Haram can accommodate morethan 100,000 people at one time.The evolving design of the Masjidal-Haram has been characterized byseveral distinct architectural forms occurring over the centuries: courtyard, arcade(portico), gateways, minaret and, in aminor yet definite way, dome. The latter isfound in all of the Sinan arcades and inthe contemporary ~ a f a - M a r w a area of themosque.

Hagia SophiaIn Constantinople, nearly eight hundredyears after the Hijra, on May 29, 1453,one of the last Islamic transformations ofsignificance took place. On that day,Sultan Mul}.ammad marched triumphantlyinto the great "Cathedral of the HeavenlyWisdom," the sum manifestation of theByzantine Empire and the Eastern HolyChurch, climbed upon the table of thesacraments, turned to Mecca, and said hisprayers. This act inaugurated a series ofchanges whereby an architectural masterpiece of the sixth century was made into a

mosque. Of course, twen tieth-centuryTurkish culture has relegated the HagiaSophia to museum status, but our concernis with the five hundred years of itsMuslim usage.In the interior of the Hagia Sophia thealtar and all liturgical objects of worshipwere removed; all biblical figures, such asthe mosaics depicting the Virgin and Childand St. John the Baptist were covered inplaster; the faces of two seraphim and twocherubim in the four pendentives of thedome were transfigured by gilded stars,and most notably, the image of Christ inthe dome was replaced by a sunburstmedallion enriched with the Sura of Light.Among acts of inclusion in the inte riorwas the placement in the old apse of amil]riib, minbar, sultan's throne and raisedplaces for the recitation of the Koran.These objects were situated with a slightorientational adjustment to the south inthe direction of Mecca. Opposite themil]riib space great fonts for ablution wereplaced. Considerably later, in the nineteenth century, the series of large calligraphic discs that now adorn the interiorwere installed. In sum, however, thespherical geometry of the interior spacewas left unaltered. Rather, the direction,the "furniture" and the signs werechanged, and hence, the particular symbolic meaning of space.On the exterior, aside from the removal ofthe cross atop the great dome, additivesteps predominate. Soon after the conversion of the Hagia Sophia, a woodenminaret was erected in the northeast, laterreplaced by a masonry minaret. Then asecond minaret of stone was erected to thesoutheast. Finally, the twin minarets ofSinan were completed on the oppositecomers in the sixteenth century. Morethan any other transformative act, the fourminarets have changed the architectonicimpression of the building. However, it iswhat has remained untouched-the spaceand form of a central domical plan-thathas had the most lasting influence. Allsubsequent great mosques of Turkey haveemulated the transformed and prototypicalHagia Sophia.

Damascus, Cordoba, DelhiThe mosque of Damascus offers aninstance of a double transformation. Apagan Roman temple of the third centuryA.D., set within a temenos, was transformed first into a Christian and then aMuslim place of worship. The plan of thechurch lay on an east-west axis with thealtar located in the apse to the west. Withthe Islamic conquest, the shell of thechurch was retained while an arcade wasadded to the north. In time, threeminarets were also constructed. By virtueof its geographic location, the basilicaspace of the interior was dramaticallyaltered by the placement of the mil]riiband minbar on the southern wall, changingby ninety degrees the spatial orientation ofthe building. Instead of looking down thelarge hierarchical nave, the emphasis wasplaced on the breadth of a seeminglyendless space of equality.Cordoba represents a reverse transformation. An Islamic place was here turnedinto a Christian place. The originalMoorish mosque was unusual for severalreasons, but it was most unique by virtueof its "room mil]riib" which remains evenin the Christian period. Significantly, thesmall cathedral that now has been insertedinto the vast arcaded space of the oldmosque is oriented almost ninety degreesfrom Mecca toward the rising sun. Asidefrom the minarets that have become belltowers and the floral decorations that haveremained virtually unchanged, it would behard to discern the changes that haveoccurred.The Qu!b ad-Din Aybak Mosque and theadjacent Ou!b Minar in Delhi of thetwelfth century A.D. represent yet againanother aspect of historical transformation. Here, as in many examples elsewherein the Muslim world, transformationinvolved borrowing the parts of existingpre-Islamic buildings. Although all theelements of the classic mosque can beseen-gateway, courtyard, porch, minaret(in this case a towering giant of seventyfive metres), mil]riib, dome and plinthsome of the actual stone columns and


31/117

1 The Visual Language of Symbol ic Form: A Preliminary Study of Mosque Architecture

masonry used in the building constructionbelong to the Hindu temples upon whosefoundation stones the mosque was constructed.

Chahiir Tiiq and EyviinRather than review a particular historicalbuilding, our final example of a transformation centres on two types of preIslamic building forms belonging to theSasanian period: the chahiir taq and theeyvan. These have influenced nearly alllater Persian mosques, culminating in suchmasterpieces as the Friday Mosque andthe Masjid -i Shah of Isfahan.Formed by a cubic base of four supportingelements connected by arches and coveredby a dome, the chahar taq or tetrapylonwas the sacred place of the Zoroastrianeternal flame. With the Islamic conquest,such sacred spaces were easily convertedinto mosques by the inclusion of a mi]Jrab.Such a simple transformation can be seenin the small mosque at Yazd-i Kasht inFars.From the great ceremonial halls of theSasanians came the eyvan or great porch.An example of the form, which wasquickly integrated into the architecture ofPersian mosques, can be seen at Niriz inFars in a mosque dating from 970 A.D.

Visual Characteristics ofMosque ArchitectureFrom the preceding sample study oftransformation, it is possible to deduce abasic list of recurring generic forms as wellas some principles of spatial organization.There is a definite concern for orientationin space expressed both in the cosmicorientation of the Ka'ba (set with cornersto cardinal directions) and in the terrestrial alignment of mosques towardMecca. The architectural device for thispurpose is the mi]Jrab. A second principleis introversion, characterized by courtyardand central dome planning. This concern is

also reflected in the gateway and portico,important parts of a "positive space"design attitude.The domical, mandalic form highlights athird principle of centrality and symmetry.The dome, when in evidence, normallyprovides the special sacred space withinwhich the mi]Jrab is located. In SoutheastAsia and other forest ecologies, this sacredspace often takes the form of a pyramidalroof with wooden rafters. Regardless ofthe particular shape, the idea of centralityremains constant.From the ritual of daily and congregational prayer, two other generic formshave evolved: the minaret and the place ofablution. The plinth has come into beingas a necessary consequence of single planecourtyard designs set upon land with aminimum degree of topographic slope.The symbolic value of a raised place isfurther in evidence in the placement ofmosques on hilltops as in many Turkishand Indo-Pakistani examples.To reiterate, the following recurring formsof mosque architecture constitute themajor elements of inclusion that haveevolved over the centuries: mi]Jrab,minaret, gateway, courtyard, portico,place of ablution, plinth and dome. Actsof exclusion are relatively few and areprimarily restricted to the removal ofspecific imagery that would limit thetranscendent unity of the Divine. Thisaspect is most telling of the eclectic andintegrative nature of Islamic architecture.In an effort to determine the prevalence ofthe aforementioned generic forms and theregional character of the spatial order oftheir organization, I have surveyed onehundred and thirteen major mosquesthroughout the Islamic world. In thissurvey, the Muslim world is categorizedaccording to regional, ecological andcultural variations as expressed by thetypology of their mosque design. Sixgroups have been identified at thispreliminary stage, but the number ofcategories could grow as more informationis collected about the zones and thetypologies of mosques. Each mosque wasanalyzed according to plans, photographs

and, whenever possible, site visits todetermine the relative level of emphasis ofthe eight generic forms and the regularityof adherence to a typology of spatialorganization. In particular, information forFar Eastern mosques was inadequate andthe results for this geographic zone areonly tentative.In reviewing the survey charts, somedefinite patterns are observable. Forexample, the Arab cultures of Arabia,Iraq, Syria, Egypt, North Africa andMoorish Spain are heavily represented bythe hypostyle mosque with a flat roof or aflat roof with dome accents. In East andWest Africa the flat hypostyle type seemsto predominate, although great dynamicsof design, which could in time alter thistrend, are evident. The interpretationshere may also be misleading, as thesampling for this large region was smalland the buildings were investigated onlythrough plans and photographs.The Indian subcontinent (includingPakistan and Bangladesh) represents aunique cultural identity, although ecological variations have influenced the designof mosques there considerably. Mosques inIran, Central Asia and Afghanistan showstrong affinities of type. Predominantly ofthe four-eyvan variety, they rely heavilyupon the chahar taq concept of placemaking. Turkey is also one of the morehomogeneous areas, having evolved thecentral dome plan within its own regionalborders and being basically of one ecological zone.Despite the preliminary nature of thissurvey, it is important to note that alleight generic forms were found in each ofthe six geographic zones and that theyappeared in no less than 83% of themosques surveyed. The incidence ofcourtyards was 93%; minarets, 89%;domes (pyramidal also included), 83%;gateways, 100%; porticos, 86%; plinths,87%; places of ablution, 97% and, ofcourse, mi]Jrabs, 100%.In the mosque typologies, the results arefor the most part regionally bound, butthere is also a spread of cultural typesbeyond the regional borders. Turkish


32/117

The Visual Language of Symbolic Form: A Preliminary Study of Mosque Architectur e

cen tral dom e plans in North Africa andEgypt are the pro duct o f O t t o m an stylisticimperia lism. T he presence of the Iranianfour-eyvan plan in Iraq and th e Indiansu bcontinent reflec ts simila r historic alprocesses.O ne ov erpower ing ques tion for fur therin qui ry arises as a res ult of thi s study. Isth e preval ance of th ese eight generi c formsa mere coinciden ce, the re sult o f auto-cratic im positio ns, or does their repeti tio n re present a natural Is lamic la nguage ofvisual form s for m osque des ign? Ourprelim in ary evi dence poi nts to th e latter.M oreo ver, what ca n be learne d from th estudy of m osque ty pologies of spatia lorganizat ion? Ass uming that an eco logicalimperat ive is at work with cultura lid ent ity, do th e adapti ve forms thuspro duced have appli cations beyond th em osque? A fruitful direct ion for fu tureaction lies in th e devel opment o f acom plete in ventory o f ma jo r Islamic build-ings. I f sys tematical ly undertaken ac-cording to the var ious eco logical an dcultu ra l zones of the M uslim world , otherbu ilding type s such as the m ad rasa an d ca ravanse rai can b e analyze d for th eirgeneric fo rms an d orderin g typolo gies. Aco m pendium of such st udies would provid ea use fu l "roadmap" to the m ore relev antforms appropr ia te today for each of th eecologic al/cultura l zones of Islam. Withgreate r refinem ent, the study co ul dad dr ess othe r archit ectural di m ensions which have been fo rgotten. This m uchneeded remem bra nce cou ld help m akeexplic it the m ultiplicity of expressionsinherent in the world of Isla m and,th rough an unders tanding of the gen ericnature of transce ndent forms, sur faces andpatter ns, creat e a new sense of visualbeau ty wort hy of Islamic cult ure .

Selected Biblio graphyA C E N Ardalan, Consultant. Masjid al-H aram (Teheran, 1976).Ali, Abdullah Yusu f The Holy Quran (Ne w York,19 46)Ardalan , N andL. Bakhtiar Sense of Unity (C hicago,1973)Burckh ardt, T Ar t of Islam (L ondon, 1976)Creswe ll, K A C Early Mu slim Architecture(Oxford, 1Q32).Grabar, 0 Formation of Islam ic Art (New Haven,1973) .Grube , E T The World of Is lam (New York, 1966)Kahler, H Hagia So phia (New York, 1967)Ku ran , A The M osque in Ea rly Ottoma n Architecture(Chicago , 1968 )Lynch, K Image of the City (C ambridge , Mass.,1960)Michell, G. Ar chitecture of the Islamic World (L on don ,1978)Pope, A A Surve y of Pe rsian Ar t (L on don , 19 38)Sc errato , U. Mon uments of Civilization : Islam(Londo n, 19 76 )

22


33/117


34/117

The Visual Language of Symbolic Form: A Preliminary Study of Mosque Architecture 24

A A

...." \),"..,"" eSamarra BaghdadKula

Marrakesh Tinmal

A F R c A

Location ofprincipal mosques of Middle East, North Africa and Spain

I II - ~ - ~ - ~ - - - ~ - - - ~ : ~ _ LI

l'l

- - - - - - - - - ~ - - ~ - - - - - - -r - - -t - -1,- ~ L : j~ - .L ; :--I = l =_ ____ L _-_

r'll'" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... : : :: . l u. . - .Kairouan, Tunisia: plan of Great Mosque. A hypostyle mosque incorporating dome over m i ~ r a b

j f 1 J I a ---- a alKufa, Iraq: plan of Great Mosque as rebuilt byZiyadh ibn Abihi in 670 A.D. An earlyhypostyle mosqueAfter K. A. C. Creswell


35/117

The Visual Language of Symbolic Form: A Preliminary Study of Mosque Architecture

ome over miJ:lriib space of Great Mosque of Kairouanhoto: S. Blair/J. Bloom

inaret of Great Mosque of Kairouan as seenS. Blair/J. Bloom

Interior of Great Mosque of KairouanPhoto. S Blair!!. Bloom


36/117

The Visual Languageof Symbolic Form: A Preliminary Study of Mosque Architecture 26

II Turkey GENERIC F O R M S MOSQUE TYPOLOGY1

.0'"'.....C:::O LOCALE NAME1 A MA S Y A Beyazit Y ~ E H I R E ~ r e f o g l u Mosque BURSA Hiidavandigar Great Mosque DIVRIGI M os qu e EDIRNE Selimiye U: 0Q) ~0 .0Ci 0 Po< < ~ OR~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~KEY: e Strong emphasis

~ Medium emphasis0 Nonexistent

1

Q)>,00....,

:I:

? Insufficient information

B L S E A U .S.S .R.

M anisa T ueKonya

B e y ~ e h i r

~ ~I MED ITERRANC?

cation of pr incipal mosques of Turkey

R K.nivrigi

E y

2 3Oi l

..o.ot:::"'3:>: Q ) ~ >) tle. '"'$ Q ) (g s8 ....~ 0 ~ 0 ;:l&:C:Cl ::C:Cl

XX

XX

XXXXXX

XXX*X C XX*X

Q Qa ntit* One-Eyvtin** Tw o-Eyvt in

5

Q) 80Cl'@....EQ)u

X

X

28

6d( A I 'G H A N ISTAN.?\ ii'-,

i/'=...--\ ""

is

"\ PA K IS T AN..,, -J'

(!

Locationof principal mosques of Afg hanistan,Central Asia and Iran


39/117

29 The Visual Languageof Symbolic Form: A Preliminary Study of Mosque Architecture

Isfahan, Iran: pl an of Masjid-i Shah. A Safavid four -e yv fm mosqueAfter V V ogt -Gokni l

Isfahan entrance to Masjid-i ShahPhoto V Prentice


40/117

The Visual Lan guage of Symbolic Form: A Preliminary Study of Mosque Architectur e 30

ZONE IV Bangladesh, India, Pakistan1

.D'"'.....C ::NO. LOCALE NAME

1 AHMEDABAD Friday Mosque DELHI Beg ampiir Friday M osq ue Khirki Pearl Mosque Qutb M inar

7 FATEHPUR Friday Mosqu e IK R I8 GAUR Tan tipara GULBARGA Fr iday M osque 0 JAUNPUR A tala 1 LA HORE Badshahi 2 W az uKhan 3 SRINAGAR Friday M os qu e 4 TA TT A Friday Mosqu e

Inventory of generic forms and typology of selected mosquesCompiled by N Ardalan

I N D I A

Gu lbarga

I N D I A N C E A N

2

"0...."'e::l0u

GENERIC F O R M S3

Q)...."'::

~

~0

~

4 5 6 7 8 1


41/117

31 The Visual Language of Symbolic Form: A Preliminary Study of Mos que Architecture

Delhi, India a view of the Friday MosquePhoto. D. Sa reen/Aga Khan Awards

Djenne, Mali. bazaar set up outside Great Mosqu ePhoto: M. Al-Hariri/Aga Khan Awards


42/117

The Visu al Language of Symbolic Form: A Preliminary Stu dy of Mosque Architecture 32

ZONE V East and W est Africa GENERIC F O R M S MOSQUE TYPOLOGY1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2


43/117

The Visual Languag e of Symbolic Form: A Preliminary Study of Mosque A rchitecture

I Far Eas t1

.D'"'....


44/117

The Visual Language of Symbolic Form. A Preliminary Stu dy of Mosque Architecture

Hang-Chou

Location of principal mosque s ofthe Far East

A village mosque between Kuala Lu m p urand Malacca, MalaysiaPhoto H-U Khan!Aga Khan Awards

34


45/117

The Visual Language of Symbolic Form: A Preliminary Study of Mosque Architecture

ORIGINSGEOGRAPHIC

LOCALE Pre-Islamic Islamic HypostyleEGYPT, IRAQ,JORDAN,I NORTH AFRICA, 4 38PALESTINE,SAUDI ARABIA,SPAIN, SYRIA

I I TURKEY 1 14AFGHANISTAN,

II I CENTRAL ASIA, 2 17IRANBANGLADESH,IV INDIA, 2 12PAKISTAN

v EAST& WEST 14AFRICAVI FAR EAST 1 8

Totals 10 103Percentage 9 91of typology of 113 mosques according to geographic zone

ed by N Ardalan

1 2

4

10

1412

3

Hypostylewith DomeAccent

28

2

21

3329

4MIHRAB COURT- MINARET DOME

YARDGEOGRAPHIC

NO. LOCALE 0 0 0 EGYPT, IRAQ, JORDAN,NORTH AFRICA,I PALESTINE, 41 1* 39 3 30 9 3 9 26SAUDI ARABIASPAIN, SYRIAI I TURKEY 15 8 6 1 9 4 2 12 3AFGHANISTAN,III CENTRAL ASIA, 19 16 3 10 6 3 13 6IRAN

BANGLADESH,IV INDIA, 14 13 1 4 9 1 7 7PAKISTANv EAST & WEST AFRICA 14 4 9 1 11 2 1 2 2VI FAR EAST 9 1 8 2 5 2 7

Totals 112 1 81 24 8 66 35 12 so 44Percentage 100 93 7 89 11 83

MOSQUE TYPOLOGYHypostyle Four-w/Domical EyvanVaulting

3 2

2 13 14

10 41

19 2117 18

5 6GATEWAY PORTICO

0 0 07 18 24 28 12 2

7 8 10 4 116 3 17 2

10 4 10 410 14 5 92 3 6 3 4 2

19 54 59 68 29 1617 100 86 14

Y e Strong emphasis ~ Medium emphasis 0 Nonexistent * Haram al-Sharif, Meccaof generic forms of 113 mosques according to geographic zone

by N Ardalan

CentralDome

3

102

11

1716

7PLINTH

07 29 6

11 413 6

7 711 3

3 628 70 15

87 13

TOTALOther NUMBER

2 42

1519

14

147 99 1138 100

8ABLUTION TOTALPLACE NUMBER 06 36 42

7 7 1 153 14 2 192 12 14

14 149 9

18 92 3 11397 3 100


46/117

Comments

GENERIC FORMS1 2 3 4 5 6 7

"0... ;>,..0 c


47/117

mi!Jriib,But it also servesan essentially Islamic symbol owing to

have defined symbolism as a directis not at all

"in-depth psychol

is at the same timeto God and nothing exists

of God. Under the first relation,

nce of symbols within the frameworkUnder the second relation, which

to the inclusive unity of God,is indispensable.

of divine transcendancepredominates as a point of view(tashbfh). Thus symbolism

God, buts "nei ther God, nor anybut God." Likewise, the entire

of God to the extentto be anything

The naturalist image

It singularly restrictscreative possibilities of art. But thisis compensated by the discovery

language of ornamentalof various

Comments

which, originating in the regular divisionof the circle, spreads indefinitely with thegenesis of star-shaped polygons. This ismore than simple ornament. Utilized incalculating the proportions of a building, itis linked to the idea of the qualitativeunity.Our theme is the reintegration of themultiple within the one. Among otherthings it implies the union of time andspace-a union reflected in art forms suchas the muqarnas, which is properlyspeaking a rhythmic articulation of space.Among the symbols of unity (always thereflection of the transcendental unity assuch), the most profound as well as themost obvious is that of light. The Muslimartist knows how to capture, filter andcrystallize it in myriad ways. Light symbolically corresponds to existence (wujud)because no form can be perceived withoutit. According to the Koran, "God is thelight of the heavens and earth." Light isone. It only appears multiple and diversebecause of the intervention of darknesswhich lacks intrinsic reality. Without lightthere is pure nothingness. Yet according toanother point of view, darkness is the stateof in differentiation (at- 'iima). Correspondingly, light is the principle ofmanifestation. There is a Hadith: "I was ahidden treasure, and as I wished to beknown, I created the world."Now I wish to offer an additional remarkas to the definition of the symbol. Wehave to distinguish clearly between thesign which is a simple indication and thesymbol which involves great complexitiesof meanings. Dr. Grabar said that thesemeanings are attached to the symbol in anarbitrary way. This leads to the destructionof the symbol because if the meanings canmean everything, then the symbol caneither be everything too or it can benothing. In fact, the multiple meanings ofthe symbols can occasionally be manifestedin the complexity of exteriorly attachedmeanings. I f we try to give too rationalistic a definition of the symbol, wesimply make the symbol disappear.Nothing else. As to the example of theminarets with different Koranic inscriptions, I do not see that their variety is a

problem. Each of these inscriptions isKoranic, and insofar as it is from theKoran, it is related to the fashion and thesymbolism of the minaret.To this I will add something whichenhances the idea that in the Islamic worldthe sound manifestation is superior to thevisual manifestation. Sound is more directly related to revelation than visualforms. From my own experience here inFez I made a map of all the existingmosques, more than two hundred, whichhave minarets. I was astonished to see theregularity of the disposition of theseminarets. I drew circles of audibilityaround each point indicating a minaret andcalculated that the average voice of themuezzin could be heard in a circle ofabout sixty-two metres. I discovered thatthe whole city plan is covered by thesecircles. So that really, before there is eventhe division into quarters, there is theminimal community around the minaretwhich clearly shows the sound genesis ofthe town.

Arkoun

I f we problematize everything, we shouldfind that the problem of symbols is a newone. It is not new historically, but ourapproach makes it new. Here I have tworemarks. How would we talk aboutsymbols if we distinguished betweenArabic and Persian frames of reference?This is a fundamental question. As aworking hypothesis, let us say that inIslamic thought there are two directionswith regard to reading the Koranic text.The Shi'ite direction has developed acertain symbolism, such as the space ofthe town and the Muslim house. Thissymbolism is introverted because it hasdeveloped as a kind of interior life, aninterior vision which can only be transmitted to the exterior through the initiation of mystics and gnostics. This is aspecial practice of symbolic thought.The second direction, that of Sunnithought, occurred in law, theology andphilosophy. It rejected reading the Koran


48/117

on any level but the literal. In fact, thistendency eliminates symbolic thought. I thas repressed the thought of Ibnal-'Arabi, for example.As for Western thought, things have notbeen any better. There was, of course, thedevelopment of Roman architecturalsymbolism in medieval thought. But veryearly, beginning with St. Thomas, to citeonly him, there was Aristotelianism. Inthe history of thought this represents astruggle between the logos and the nomos.Christian thought, in following St.Thomas, developed like Sunnism alongAristotelian lines which opposed thedevelopment of mythical and thereforesymbolic thought. With the advent ofCartesian rationalism and later with theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries, wecome to technology. In other words,symbolic thought has again been repressed. Now we are dependent onrationalist thought which prevents us fromproperly raising the issue of the symbol.This is why I believe that it is prematureto discuss the definition of symbols.I would also like to propose that we takeinto account the problem of knowledge.When we discourse, and therefore conferknowledge, is it a representation of theworld we express in our discourse, or doesour speech express the reality of things? I fwe do not keep this problem in mind, weare going to wander and be divided ondefinitions.

RaymondConcerning the problem which has beenraised and which is directly linked to theprogramme of the Aga Khan Award, Ibelieve that the key issue is not theexistence or nonexistence of symbols. Thediscussion about the minaret, for example,is very interesting, but I do not knowwhether we can really consider the minaretas a symbol of Muslim architecture. I tdoes not always indicate the presence of amosque. The monuments which have beenpresented are exceptional monuments;perhaps ninety-five percent of all Muslims

Comments

worship in structures that have nothing todo with the grandiose mosques that havebeen shown. In fact, they worship inrather small oratories which are quitesimple.I think that the minaret is a functionalwork of architecture which is integratedinto the general concept of religious ritual.A religious edifice represents a collectionof objects that permit the performance ofrites. For example, the mil]riib is muchmore important than the minaret in manyrespects. Here I am referring to theexperience of archeologists. Duringexcavations it is the presence of a smallrecess in the wall oriented in a particulardirection that helps us to determinewhether we are dealing with a mosque.This is exactly what has happened to metwice.I agree with Prof. Grabar when he saidthat the same monument can assume many

Varamin, Iran: Friday Mosque, exterior wall,detail showing star-shaped polygonsPhoto R. Holod

38

comparable functions in various religions.The Gothic cathedrals in Cyprus, whenendowed with minarets, became mosques,and a monument in Algiers was first amosque, then a cathedral, and then amosque a second time. I think that we canovercome the real theoretical difficultieswhich I have stated only if we adopt afunctionalist approach within the framework of studying the religion as well as itsadherents.Cultural factors can also explain thedevelopment of forms which vary according to time and place. This is not aproblem that exists only for Muslims.Christians encounter the same difficultieswhen having to choose between classicalart and modern art. The problem iswhether our era can create originalcultural types by turning to traditionaltypes and regional techniques, or will itattempt to create monuments that arelabeled "contemporary"?I think that the functionalist approach canalso guide us in the study of the city andnot just monuments. Cities are complexorganisms which offer a setting for thefulfillment of vital functions such as housing and food as well as religious needs. I fwe approach the double problem of architecture and urbanism from this angle,style becomes a secondary issue.

Mahdi

I must first make a short remark aboutwhat Dr. Arkoun has said, but my mainquestion really relates to something thatwas said by Prof. Grabar. First, thetypology of symbolic interpretation, on theone hand, and a kind of rationalist andliteralist interpretation, on the other, iscertainly tenable , but dividing it betweenShi'ism and Sunnism is somewhat simplistic. Obviously the earliest kind ofmystical writings that we have from theeighth and ninth centuries are almostwholly Sunnite. Mysticism was practicallythe domain of Sunnism until sometime inthe fourteenth century. And within Shi'ismthe conflict between these kinds of two


49/117


50/117

The other broad issue is the question ofthe mosque. I tend to disagree with Mr.Ardalan in that I do not think that themosque was a sacred space for most of thehistory of Islam. I t was the space of thewhole community in which all the com-munity activities took place. Now a lessen-ing of the functions of the mosque hasoccurred. Perhaps this is exactly whatcharacterizes the second half of the twen-tieth century, that one subdivides architec-turally one's functions.

Porter

First, I wish to address one of Prof.Grabar's early challenges to us. Thatsymbols never appear in form is a fas-cinating proposition. The second topic hasto do with the expression of social andreligious patterns of rituals as symbolic inform. We have not addressed the questionof social and religious habits so far, a tleast explicitly. My third question concernsthe evolution of new symbols. How do werecognize these and what are their pre-conditions? Finally, is symbolism as anidea Illegitimate in Islamic thought fromthe point of view of its constituting ananalytical separation? Is it simply evidenceof a Western mode of thinking applied toIslam or, alternatively, is symbolismidolatrous within the framework of Islamicthought?Let me start by making some remarksabout the relationship between people andforms. Prof. Grabar asserted that dia-chronic meaning-meaning that existsacross time-was not possible becausesymbolism is only evident in form for aparticular place and time. He illustratedthis by showing how Koranic inscriptionsmight imply the precise meaning of a placeat a particular time. Now it seems to methat there are at least three ways that onecan look at inscriptions. The first is thatinscriptions are simply signs with respectto the fonn in which they define them-selves. They literally tell you what theyare or perhaps for what they are intended.Second, they may be forms. As beautifully

Comments

Yazd, !raw Friday Mosque, dome

drawn writing they may be symbolicassertions of the past and beautiful decora-tions in and of themselves which carryforth from past ages. Third, they are veryclearly symbolic of the Koran.The second point I would like to make isthe fact that an object contains a sign.This tells you what that object is bu t doesnot necessarily confer upon that object thequality of being a symbol. I think anexample would be simply to imagine aKoranic inscription being placed on thewrong kinds of buildings in Islamic cities.Alternatively, they may be the right kindsof buildings, but perhaps in a Westernculture the inscriptions would be entirelyincongruous, that is, in a place where thepresence of the sign on a particular objectsimply does not achieve symbolic meaningfor those who wish to perceive it. There-fore, there has to be something intrinsicabout the situation in which this signhappens to occur and perhaps somethingintrinsic about the sign itself that allowsthe form to be charged with meaning at aparticular time.

40

We all seem to agree implicitly upon thesethree preconditions for charging a symbolwith meaning. The object or form has tohave some potential for becoming sym-bolic. Thus, while a specialized visualsymbolism in a culture may be synchronic,that is, it may exist at only one moment intime, the potential of that form to beimbued with symbolic content must derivefrom other times and other places. Apotential exists within that form and thusthere is a diachronic symbolism at somelevel. Maybe it is at a second or a thirdlevel, but it has some general importancewhich it brings to the scene in order that ithave the potential to be charged withmeaning.The second precondition for an object tobecome a symbol seems to be that theinscription itself exploits the potential ofthat particular object. This occurs throughthe appropriateness of the inscriptionwhatever appropriateness means-andthrough the excellence of its execution.This is particularly troubling to historianswhose duty it is to find out whether those


51/117


52/117

as a signal, some as a literal linguisticthe

is rich and mobile, and it is man,

At a certain

The form does not change, but

He said that although heon the

I t seems to me that we areto do the same thing for

I t was noty romanticism, noton aesthetics

that fol

of today's concern. That concern isthe point of talking about things of

e we trying to demythologize Islam asas demythologized? What is

but one cannot reallyof them.

of teaching among the MuslimWe are also not trying

to become somewhat

Comments

sensitive to the great monuments which wehave seen and perhaps help the Jurythat is going to bestow the Awards. Buthere I think something which Mr. Ardalansaid earlier is quite crucial. We should beabsolutely humble enough to say thatultimately one has to depend on the senseof excellence and the taste of that Jury.In short, even if we had a hundred suchseminars we are not going to changethat particular core that is there. All wecan do is somehow give some pointers,things which one may have missed somehow or not thought about.This brings to mind an experience I had inthe Alhambra. There are all those wonderful inscriptions from the Koran andpoetry, but somewhere low in a cornerthere is one that is very small. I do notknow whether art historians have lookedat it or not. I t is not really very decorative. I t is a prayer that asks in Arabic,"Let my work be filled with love."Now I suggest that this is another thing forthe Jury to consider. Was something awork of love, or was it for glory? I donot need to enumerate the alternatives.Again, there are really no tests or rulesthat one can give, but I think that wecan depend on the great sensitivity andtaste of the Jury to be able to tell thedifference. I am sure that they must haveheard somehow that one thing was a workof genuine love and that another was forsomething else. I believe that one answerto whether a symbol is legitimate or notwill probably be this: if it expresses man'slove for God on whatever level, if itmoves one a step nearer to God, it iscertainly legitimate. I f it expresses love foranything else, then certainly it is idolatrous.

Reference Note1 Wayne E Begley, "The Myth of the Taj Mahaland a New Theory of Its Symbolic Meaning," The Ar t

Bulletin 61 (1979), pp 7-37

42


53/117

Function:Concepts and Practice

Islamic Philosophy and the Fine ArtsM uhsin S. M ahdi

In going over the readings prepared forthis seminar, I was pleased to notice inthem the absence of ethnically and raciallybased views on Islamic art and architecture. These views should be guardedagainst, and not allowed to re-enterthrough the back door via ambiguousexpressions like "culture" and "religion,"terms that mean all things to all people,especially when lumped together. Take anexpression like "Islamic culture": onedifficulty is that it tends to be seen interms of so-called primitive cultures, as itsometimes is in anthropology, or of someparticular, real or presumed "religiousculture," such as Christianity The attemptto look at Islam through Christian eyesand to search for symbols that parallelthose of Christianity is a dubious enterprise, regardless of protestations that oneis looking for specifically Islamic symbolsor symbols that distinguish Islamic culturefrom other cultures. Christianity absorbedand transformed, and in this waypreserved, pagan or gnostic symbols; Islamrebelled against these symbols and tried toremove them from the consciousness andexperience of the Muslim community. Weshould also remember that symbols, andthe symbolic functions of art and architecture as we understand them today, arepredominantly nineteenth-centuryromantic European notions. Theirrelevance to the self-understanding ofartistic creation and expression in othertimes and places cannot be taken forgranted (the critical side of A. H.el-Zein's "Beyond Ideology and

Theology" is rather instructive in thisrespect). 1Even if we accept the notion of "culture"or "Islamic culture" as a useful point ofdeparture, the relationship between craftsin general and what we call the "fine arts"in particular and other "aspects" of such aculture remains highly problematic Yet inthis seminar we are dealing with thepossible relationship between the fine artsin Islam and certain other things called"written sources." Here I think it isprudent not to be too ambitious or toohasty, and Oleg Grabar's suggestion that"the importance of written sources lies inthe parallelism they provide for visualphenomena" is a sound starting point. Theonly indication in the readings that such aparallelism existed between the fine artsand philosophy is the passage from theAlchemy of Happiness by al-Ghazali,which is cited by Richard Ettinghausenand referred to by Oleg Grabar:

The beauty of a thing lies in theappearance of that perfection whichis realizable and in accord with itsnature ... [For example] beautifulwriting combines everything tha t ischaracteristic of writing, such as harmonyof letters, their correct relations to eachother, right sequence, and beautifularrangement. 2

Let me, therefore, begin here and pointout what the patrons as well as thepractitioners of these arts could havelearned from philosophy, either directly orindirectly, through popularized versions of


54/117

osophy spread am ong educated circlesmystics like al-G hazali:.

he Task of Islamic Philosophyf I w ere asked by a student of Islamic artnd architecture where one could look inslamic philosophy for further enl ightenent on these quest ions of a thing's

ct ion, harmony, the correct relations among its p arts and on the irplications for m an and man-mades of art, my answ er would be quite

mple. This is w ha t Islamic philosophy isll about: it is the search for order andarmony in the natural w orld, thetelligible world, the human soul, and they. I t is an account of such order and

here it exists, and an account ofow to res tore i t in man and in the city. I t

ooks at works of art as being in theervice of this objective. I f the s tuden t

thento ask whether he could expectin this literature an account of

ic architectural symbols and theireanings, the answer would again be

the overarching concern of Islamichilosophy is tofind out w hat is true

ays and everywhere, and to discovers that govern tem pora l and

ons and change insofar ashese are rhythmic or cyclical or theroducts of the interact ion of permanent

I t is nota religious or cultural orational philosophy in the sense that it iseproduct of , or bound up or concerned

rimarily with, the id eas and ideals of aarticular hum an community, not even ones large a nd significant as its own religiousmmunity. Yet it is equal ly t rue that

slamic philosophy is very much concernedders tanding the particular characte r

th e Islamic community, and archi tecforms and decorat ions are te m poral ly

and locally boundwith specific nations ,ities, and tribes , and with their part icularnvironm ents and tr aditions. In this sense,slamic philosophy, like Islam itself, isoncerned ~ i t h m an's deeds and way ofife as de term ined by his views of theorld , of the humansoul, and of the civic

Islamic Philosoph y and the Fine A rts 44

Fez, Morocco: a corner in the madrasa al- 'A!far!nPhoto: H-U Khan /Aga Khan Awards


55/117

45

order. What a builder does, on the otherhand, is largely determined by the needsand purposes of the particular humancommunity for which he builds, which maybe a family or a business, a civicestablishment or a whole nation; and hemust know and take into account thoseneeds and purposes.How then, one may ask, can the studentunderstand the relationship betweenIslamic philosophy (or the thought of themajor Muslim philosophers) and Islamicarchitecture (or the work of the majorMuslim architects)? Is the relationship"proved" to a significant degree by thefact that they were all Muslims. I shouldnot think so; one can be a good Muslimwithout being a philosopher or anarchitect. One must therefore look formore concrete links. I f they existed, it wasprobably because some architects wereeducated and intelligent men who read orheard about some of the writings of thephilosophers. But the question stillremains: what could they have learnedfrom these writings?

Aspects of Divine and Human CreationBefore looking for answers, it is useful torecall some of the characteristic ways inwhich Islamic philosophy deals with thearts. Although it does occasionally setdown the general rules that govern theproduction of works of art, it does notgenerally engage in an analysis of theserules as they apply to the production ofparticular works, except by way of givingexamples; nor do we find a detailedanalysis of aesthetic experience or of theproblems arising from the contemplationof a work of art. The particular rules thatgovern the production of a particular workof art, as well as the analysis of theexperience of particular works, a renormally dealt with by the art critic. Thephilosopher may also be a poet or amusician, a literary critic or a critic ofmusic. Bm: these activities remain distinctfrom what we may call his "philosophy ofart," which is concerned with such

Islamic Philosophy and the Fine Arts

questions as the relationship between artand knowledge (whether knowledge of theCreator or of the created world); the roleof the powers and passions of the soul inthe production and experience of art; andthe civic functions of art.The architect is a maker. I f he is anygood, we say he is a creative man, acreator. I f he is a Muslim he knowsalready that the Supreme Creator is God,and one assumes that he would beinterested in reflecting on His work andeven in imitating His creation. There is, ofcourse, quite a bit about God's creation inthe Koran and the Hadith, bu t it is notdifficult to distinguish between the waythese sources speak about God's creationand the way philosophy investigates andpresents it. Philosophy looks at it as awhole, and looks at its parts and the orderof its parts as an object of humanknowledge. There is an affinity betweenthe way the philosopher looks at the worldand the way the artisan conceives of hiswork, inasmuch as they both consider awhole, its parts, and the relationshipsamong those parts. Both are engaged in ahuman enterprise: one looks at the naturalwhole with the aim of knowing it, theother conceives a whole with the aim ofproducing it. Both need to consider thiswhole-to-part relationship to the extentthat human capacity permits. But morespecific issues still have to be considered.How is the Supreme Creator conceived?Does one give priority to His knowledgeor to His will? In philosophy this questionturns on whether He is conceived as thesupreme intellect or as the mysterious Onebeyond the supreme intellect, beyond allknowledge and being. Muslim philosophers were divided on this fundamentalissue, and their differences were notnecessarily related to the part of theMuslim community to which theybelonged. In Ismaili philosophy, forinstance, the early Iranian philosopherssuch as Abii Ya'qiib al-Sijistfmi thoughtof God as beyond being and not being,and as the originator of the supremeintellect through His command, while thelater Fatimid philosopher l;lamid al-Dinal-Kirmiini thought of Go d as the first or

supreme intellect, and in this he wasfollowed by the Ismaili thinkers in Yemen.The question may seem to deal with asubject that is too remote to have anyrelevance to human things. In fact it isnot, for it determines the end of humanthought and human action. Is the end ofman (who is created in God's image) theperfection of his intellect that terminatesin the intellectual intuition of the whole,or is it to contact that mysterious Onethrough deeds? The answer to thisquestion may determine the way one looksat artistic creation in its most sublimeform-whether it is considered an imaginative representation of how things are andhow man ought to act, both of which canalso be articulated by intellectual understanding and intuition, or an imaginativerevelation that transcends all createdreality and anything that intellectualunderstanding and intuition can achieve ontheir own.This issue has something to do with thenext one, which is the nature and structureof the created world, intelligible as well assensible, the heavenly bodies as well asthe bodies here below. Do stars haveintellects and souls? Are they ranked in anorder ascending to that which is closest toGod? Such questions are more philosophicthan religious, even though a philosophicinterpretation may be related to or haveits origin in a Koranic or Hadith text. Weall know of the numerous verses aboutlight and darkness in the Koran, especiallythe famous "light verse" (XXIV, 35), thatlend themselves to philosophic interpretations: light as the physical manifestationof intellectual or supra-intellectual light,and the different parts of creation as anorderly mixture of light and darkness, ananalogy of being and not being, thatterminates in God as pure or unmixedlight. These philosophic interpretationswere current in Sufi circles and among theSufi orders to which many of the greatarchitects belonged.Then there is the analogy that is drawnbetween the structure of the world, thestructure of the soul, and the structure ofthe city. The structure of the soul and theactivities of its various parts or powers and


56/117

their relationship and hierarchy are ofinterest to any artist whose art consists ofcreating a work that pleases or conveys amessage or arouses a certain feeling in thehuman beings who look at it or work orworship in it. Sense perception,imagination, intellect, passion, andpractical understanding are all parts of thesoul that the architect addresses to someextent through what he creates. The powerof imagination, its functions in waking anddreaming, the way it mediates betweenunderstanding and sense perception, itsrole as a receptacle of intellectualperception or revelation, and its creativerole in representing this perception orrevelation in sensible forms are allquestions crucial to any discussion ofsymbols in architecture and any understanding of how a work of art works.There is also a question of the passionsand desires of the human soul: pleasureand pain, comfort, security, the desire forwealth, domination, honor, and so forth.How does a work of art provide for these,order them, exploit them, or controlthem? D

Documents

Jonathan G. Katz (Editor)-Architecture as Symbol and Self-Identity-Aga Khan Award for Architecture(1980)