Обсуждение:Архитектура

Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān / Art and Architecture and the Qurʾān

Взаимосвязь между откровенным писанием ислама и отношением к искусству и архитектуре и его практикой будет обсуждаться по трем разделам: 1. Коранские ссылки или аллюзии на искусство и архитектуру, включая последующие отрывки, цитируемые в отношении художественного творчества, даже если они первоначально не предназначались; 2. Использование Корана в качестве источника цитат при изготовлении и декорировании произведений искусства; 3. Совершенствование самого Корана через искусство. Искусство и архитектура в Коране С самого начала необходимо указать, что с частичным исключением q 27:44, о котором будет сказано ниже, Коран не содержит каких-либо заявлений, которые могут быть истолкованы как описание произведённых вещей или как доктринальное руководство для соз-дания или оценивая визуально воспринимаемые формы. Мир, в котором было сделано откровение Корана, не был тем, кто знал или особенно ценил произведения искусства, а позднее ḥadīth — отчеты, в которых записаны слова и поступки Пророка, — лишь кратко упомяните несколько модных тканей, которыми владеют члены антуража пророк. Кроме того, хотя Шади приписывает теоретические позиции Пророка или практические мнения о создании произведений искусства, никто прямо не утверждается в самом Коране, а только выводится из разных мест. Наконец, в то время как в Коране довольно четко говорится о таких практиках, как молитва или паломничество, которые специально ограничены мусульманами, она не дает прямого или подразумеваемого определения или даже требования к конкретному языку для выполнения этих практик. По всем этим причинам рассмотрение искусства и архитектуры в Коране не приводит к целому целому, а к ряду несвязанных наблюдений, которые можно разделить на две группы: прямые ссылки на сделанные вещи или на построенные пространства; и косвенные последствия для создания вещей и дизайна пространств. Прямые ссылки Есть, прежде всего, ссылки на категории производства и, в частности, на строительство. Один довольно яркий набор примеров включает конкретные предметы, которые упоминаются только один раз. Все они описаны как находящиеся во владении Соломона (q.v.), короля пророка, чье покровительство за произведения искусства было легендарным и чьи ремесленники обычно были не менее легендарными джиннами (q.v.). В п. 34:12 он приказал создать фонтан расплавленной меди, мусульманскую адаптацию знаменитого наглого моря в храме Соломона в Иерусалиме (кв. В.), Как описано в 2 Царств 25:13 и 1 Chron 18: 8. Затем, в q 34:13, джинны произвели для него махараб, тамафил, джифан огромных размеров и qudūr, которые были поставлены на якорь, чтобы их нельзя было легко удалить. Значение слова miḥrāb (пение maḥārīb), о котором будет сказано ниже, также встречается и в других контекстах. Jifān — это нечто вроде сосуда, обычно переводимого как «портьеру», термин достаточно неопределенного значения, чтобы скрыть нашу неопределенность относительно того, что действительно было задействовано, и qudūr, «кулинарные горшки» упоминаются только в этом конкретном отрывке. Точный смысл и функция этих двух предметов несколько таинственны. Тиммал, также во множественном числе, появляется снова в q 21:52, где он явно относится к идолам, которым поклоняется отец Авраама (q.v.). Эти идолы были бы скульптурами людей или животных, и это, вероятно, скульптуры в целом, а не, в частности, идолы, которые должны быть поняты в п. 34:13 (см. Кумиры и изображения). Ассоциация Соломона с необычными зданиями подтверждается к 27:44, где, чтобы проверить Королеву Савскую (qv) и в конечном счете продемонстрировать свое превосходство в ней, Соломон приказал построить покрытую или проложенную плитами стекло (mumarrad min qawārīr). Обычно переводится как «павильон» или «дворец», слово «ṣarḥ» встречается также в q 28:38 и q 40:36. Оба раза он модифицируется прилагательным «высокий» и относится к конструкции, упорядоченной Pha-¶ raoh (q.v.). Поскольку все эти отрывки касаются мифических зданий и потому, что корень слова подразумевает чистоту и ясность, этот термин может отражать атрибут прозрачности в здании, а не его форму. Тогда это будет павильон, сопоставимый с сложным сооружением, которое, как утверждается, существовало на вершине доисламских дворцов Йемена. Вообще говоря, представляется предпочтительным понимать этот термин как «построенное пространство значительных заслуг и привлекательности», не будучи более конкретным, хотя этот вопрос остается открытым для обсуждения. То, что здесь имеет смысл, — это не точный смысл этого термина, а наличие в пределах qur’annic образов произведений искусства, которые не были замечены, но только воображались. Далее будет видно, что история Соломона и царицы Савской (см. Билки), как сказано в Коране, имеет много дополнительных последствий для искусства. Вторая категория терминов, относящихся к искусству или применимых к искусству, состоит из гораздо более обычных слов. Существует ряд терминов для расчетов, таких как qarya (q 25:51), обычно термин для города, а также для небольших поселений; мадина, слово используется только дважды (q 28:18, 20), обладающее очень широкими коннотациями; масакин «[разрушенные] жилища» (п. 29:38), что часто встречается в поэзии; и более абстрактный термин, подобный баладу в аль-Балад аль-амине, «место безопасности» (q 95: 3), что, вероятно, относится к Мекке (q.v.). Байт — обычное слово для дома, и оно должно быть местом неприкосновенности частной жизни (q 3:49, 4: 100; 24: 27-9), качество, которое до сих пор искали архитекторы, строящие то, что они предполагают быть исламской традицией. Слово использовалось для жилища жен Пророка (qv; q 33: 33-4), для которого секретность была важным критерием, а также для предположительно причудливой обители Зулейки, жены Потифара (12: 23, см. Joseph). Когда он упоминается как украшенный золотом (q.v .; q 17:93), он подразумевается уничижительно как выражение тщеславного богатства. Иногда иногда возникает Дар (например, 17: 5, 59: 2), без четкого различия с байтом, за исключением того, что он подразумевает какую-то более широкую функцию, как в аль-дар аль-ахире в q 28:83, указывающий «пространство после этого». довольно обычное слово qaṣr (замок, дворец) происходит только четыре раза, дважды метафорически, однажды в известном клише, ссылаясь на разрушенные «дворцы» старого и некогда со ссылкой на рай (qv) в отрывке, который будет рассмотрен позже , Другие термины для чего-то построенного или, по крайней мере, идентифицированного пространственно реже, например, mathwā (жилище, q 47:19) или maāāni' (здания, q 26: 129). Есть несколько примеров, когда указываются методы построения, часто метафорически, как в q 13: 2, где небеса изображаются как чудесное божественное создание, построенное без столбцов. Третья категория терминов состоит из слов, которые, независимо от их первоначального значения, приобретали специфическую мусульманскую коннотацию во времена Пророка или позже. Двумя самыми важными из них являются масид и михраб. Масджид (место прострации, см. ) встречается двадцать восемь раз в Коране. В пятнадцати случаях он модифицирован аль-Шарамом, ссылкой на святилище Меккан, чья доисламская святость была сохранена и преобразована мусульманским откровением, то есть Кааба (qv), святой дом (аль-байт аль-Шарам в q 53:97), который построил Авраам и Измаил (qv) (д. 2: 125). Он упоминается как qibla (q.v.) или направление молитвы (q 2: 142-7) и как цель паломничества (q 5: 96-7). Однако ничего не говорится о его форме или о пространстве вокруг него, и есть лишь неопределенная ссылка на важность его надлежащего обслуживания (п. 9:19). Даже это действие не так важно, как исповедовать веру во всю его правду. В п. 17: 1 слово когда-то используется для святилища Меккан, а в 17: 7 оно относится к еврейскому храму в Иерусалиме (q.v.). Слово используется во втором ¶ времени в q 17: 1 в выражении «самая далекая мечеть» (аль-масид аль-акша), точное определение которого было предметом многих дебатов (см. Мечеть аку). Нет сомнений в том, что в какой-то момент истории и, возможно, уже в середине второй и восьмой столетий, она стала общепризнанной как ссылка на Иерусалим. Это, однако, не было в течение первого века после эмиграции Мухаммеда в Медину (хиджра, см. ), когда это было идентифицировано многими как место в районе Мекки или как символическое пространство в чудесном событии (см. ). Остальные десять случаев масида не образуют целостного целого, за исключением тех случаев, когда все они упоминают место, где поклоняются Богу (п. 7:29). Он буквально принадлежит Богу (q 72:18, прохождение, часто используемое в надписях мечети, см. Ниже), а неверующие запрещены (q 9:17). «Те, кто верят в Бога и в последний его день, практикуют регулярную молитву и приносят милостыню и не боятся никого, кроме Бога, чтобы поддерживать и часты [глагол» мамара имеет сложный диапазон значений «) мечети Бога» (д. 9:18, другой проход, который часто используется в надписях). Рассказывая историю о семи шпалах Эфеса (см. Людей в пещере), Коран утверждает, что Бог построил им масид (см. 18:21). Самый любопытный и несколько неясный отрывок — q 22:40, в котором содержится список святилищ, которые были бы уничтожены, если бы Бог не вмешивался в их спасение. Этот список включает в себя ṣawāmi', biya', ṣalawāt и masājid, обычно — но есть варианты — переводимые как «монастыри [или монастыри], церкви, синагоги и мечети». Первые два слова больше никогда не используются в Коране. Третий термин, ṣalawāt, является множественным числом лалата, слова, обычно используемого для мусульманской ритуальной молитвы. Здесь речь идет скорее о месте, чем о молитве. Но сама последовательность предлагает четыре разных типа священных пространств, вероятно, представляющих четыре разные религиозные традиции. Если есть четыре религиозных группы, подразумеваемых, ислам, иудаизм и христианство легко предложить — даже если кто-то не знает, с какой терминологией идет речь о вере, — что такое четвёртая религия? На самом деле, с некоторым скептицизмом слово «масаджид» переводится как «мечети», поскольку нигде в Коране слово «масид», используемое в одиночестве, не может быть правильно понято, как место молитвы, ограниченное мусульманами. Это всегда означает общее святое пространство, которое может использовать мусульмане. Поэтому этот стих должен быть связан с каким-то конкретным событием или историей, чьи конкретные коннотации неизвестны. Короче говоря, правильный вывод, чтобы извлечь из доказательства, состоит в том, что, хотя Коран ясно демонстрирует понятие священного или освященного пространства, он не идентифицирует конкретно мусульманское пространство как масид. Единственное конкретное мусульманское пространство, упомянутое в Коране, — это масид Мекки и его священный корпус. Неопределенность почти всех ссылок на него может объяснить некоторые из более поздних проблем в фактическом определении точного направления молитвы (qibla). Было ли это к городу Мекке (q.v.), большому ограждению, Каабе, одной из её сторон или чёрному камню в углу? Короче говоря, слово masjid — предназначенное для долгой и богатой истории на арабском и многих других языках — вскоре после смерти Пророка в 11/632 году стало означать особый тип здания, ограниченного мусульманами. В Коране это, как представляется, имеет очень широкое значение с очень неопределенным отношением к исключительно исламскому поклонению. Вопросы почти настолько сложны, что слово miḥrāb, которое также обладает рядом практических и символических значений. Это тоже было предназначено для долгой и выдающейся истории, как название для ниши, указывающей направление молитвы на стене всех мусульманских святилищ. Термин ¶ miḥrāb также относится к типу декоративной выемки, найденной на надгробных плитах, фаянсовых панелях и коврах. Как было показано в недавней статье (Н. Хури, Михраб), слово первоначально обозначало возвышенные структуры, которые приобрели какое-то почетное значение, хотя элемент высоты явно присутствует только в одном кураническом стихе. В q 38:21 спорящие поднимаются к мишару, где Давид (q.v.). Почетное качество относится к этому конкретному месту путем вывода, как это происходит в трех случаях (см. 3:37, 39, 19:11), где этот термин используется для Захарии (qv), слуги Бога и отца Иоанна Баптист (qv). Когда используется во множественном числе maḥārīb (q 34:13), его обычно интерпретируют как «места отправления культа», но, даже если освящено традицией, это толкование не представляется необходимым, поскольку другие термины, перечисленные в этом отрывке, — maḥārīb, tamāthīl, jifān и qudūr (см. выше), что джинны, изготовленные для Соломона, — это в основном образцы власти и богатства, а не религиозные, хотя и языческие, потребности. В целом, точное значение этого слова в Коране кажется более светским, чем благочестивым, и не имеет прямого отношения к более позднему использованию слова в мечети и как к теме дизайна. В то время как масид и мидраб стали условиями для определения основных элементов исламской архитектуры, а другие термины, относящиеся к созданным формам, оставались неизменными и относительно ясными (байт или дар) или редкостью и довольно неясными (ṣarḥ), есть категория ссылок qur'ānic на визуально- которые не были замечены, но которые, тем не менее, существуют. Многочисленные рассказы о рае включают множество ссылок, которые относятся к категории архитектуры и планирования. Эти учетные записи, возможно, повлияли на дизайн садов, в частности в Индии Великих Моголов, как с гробницей Акбара в Сикандаре близ Агры и с Тадж-Махалом в самой Агре (см. У. Бегли и З. А. Десаи, Тадж-Махал, хотя их аргументы не принимаются повсеместно). Утверждалось также, что эти куранические проходы были буквально проиллюстрированы в оформлении мечетей, в частности, в мозаиках ранней второй / восьмой века Великой мечети Дамаска, также известной как мечеть Омейядов (Б. Финстер, Die Mosaiken; C Бриш, Наблюдения), хотя другие (О. Грабар, Формирование) остались более скептичными. Что бы ни оказалось подходящим для объяснения более поздних событий в оформлении и дизайне, архитектурные и декоративные образы пронизывают большую часть видения Корана раем и даже временами ада (q.v.). И рай, и ад вводятся через причудливые ворота, зелёный цвет — цвет рая (q 39:72). Реки и формальные — в отличие от естествен-ных — сады изобилуют (q 43: 70-3; 44:51; 47:15; 76:12, среди многих мест, см. Сад) в раю. Есть также фонтаны (стр. 76: 6). В знаме-нитом отрывке (q 61:12) сады описаны над подземными реками и прекрасными жилищами (масакин в q 61:12 или quṣūr в q 25:10) возводятся в садах. В пяти отрывках (q 25:75, 29:58, 34:37, 39: 20-1) эти жилища называются ghuraf (sing. Ghurfa), во всех случаях, но один изменён прилагательным «высокий», то же уравнение между высотой и значением, как в случае слова miḥrāb. Трудно понять, что подразумевалось или предполагалось термином в его необычном появлении в странном проходе (п. 25:75), который, как представляется, утверждает, что в раю есть только одна гурфа. Должны ли они быть целыми архитектурными застройками или простыми павильонами? Поскольку у нас нет средств для входа в воображаемый мир чувствительности к qur'ānic, вопрос не может быть дан в исторических терминах, хотя, возможно, как видно, может быть введен в вымысел более позднего искусства. Такая же трудность возникает, когда мы пытаемся представить себе хиджам, «палатки или павильоны» (q 55:72), в которых обнару-живаются часы (ḥūr, see houris), сурур (петь. Sarīr, одно из нескольких слов для "трона") с постоянно молодыми товарищами (см. 56:15) и особенно сам престол Бога. Слово для престола Бога — это «божество», как в q 40: 7, только одно из его двадцать девяти случаев в Коране. В большинстве случаев слово используется в единственном числе и относится к трону как место божественного присутствия (см. Sechina). Слово «борд» также используется однажды в рассказе о Соломоне и королеве Савской (д. 27: 41-2). При использовании во множественном числе ('urūsh, q 2: 259; 18:42, 22:45) это относится к некоторой части более крупной архитектурной композиции. Здесь он обычно переводится как «башни» или «решетки», что отражает неопределенность переводчиков и комментаторов в отношении характеристики, которая всегда проявляется как разрушенная божественным гневом. Последняя визуально значимая цитата, относящаяся к раю и визуально воспринимаемым вещам, состоит в том, что избранные прекрасно одеты (см. 35:33, 76:21) и спутники, которых они там находят (д. 76: 15-7), носят суда (ания), чашки (акваб) и кубки (ка), отполированные, чтобы выглядеть как кристалл или серебро (это, по-видимому, правильная интерпретация qawārīra min fiḍḍa, q 76:16). Их одежда из шелка (кв.в.), самые драгоценные металлы — серебро, а кристально-полированное стекло — модель ожидаемого визуального эффекта. Эти образы важны в том, чтобы предлагать материалы и предметы, которые считались роскошными в Аравии в начале первого и седьмого веков, а также послужили источником вдохновения для поздней персидской живописи, где была полностью использована связь между раем и роскошью через дорогую одежду и другие предметы. Последствия для искусства Довольно ранние отрывки из Корана стали использоваться для оправдания и объяснения ¶ мусульманского отношения к искусству в целом и к представлению живых существ в частности. Эта последняя тема была и будет по-прежнему предметом много дискуссий и дискуссий, поскольку она отражает постоянно меняющиеся потребности и проблемы преобладающей культуры и общества, а также фактические позиции, очевидные в Коране. Последний, в целом, совершенно ясен. В отличие от второй заповеди Ветхого Завета, нет никакого противопоставления искусству или представлению, так же как нет призыва к созданию произведений искусства или материальной культуры, которые были бы явно мусульманами. Таким образом, такие термины, как «иконоборчество» (призыв к уничтожению изображений) или даже немецкий Bilderverbot (запрещающий создание изображений), нецелесообразно определять какую-либо часть послания Корана. Термин «аниницизм», означающий просто «отсутствие доктрины или даже много размышлений о репрезентативных образах», нашел пользу у некоторых ученых и более точно отражает отношение Корана. С другой стороны, когда широкая мусульманская культура была создана на обширных территориях, она была вынуждена заниматься богатыми и разнообразными художественными традициями чуждых культур, с которыми она столкнулась, и она искала в Коране либо прямые ответы на свои вопросы о действительность художественной деятельности или, по крайней мере, ссылки, которые могут привести к таким ответам. В отсутствие прямых утверждений три вида аргументов могли быть и были получены из Корана. Один из них основан на нескольких отрывках, которые могут быть истолкованы как дело с представлениями. «Статуи», сделанные для Соломона (стр. 34: 12-3), уже упоминались. Более часто используемый проход для защиты запрета изображений — это q 6:74, где Авраам, гораздо более святая фигура, чем Соломон в исламской традиции, говорит своему отцу Азару (qv): "Вы принимаете идолов ¶ (aṣnām) как боги? В самом деле, я вижу, что вы и ваш народ проявляете явную ошибку ". Этот отрывок должен быть связан с q 5:90, где также упоминаются идолы (anṣāb) вместе с вином и азартными играми (см. Интоксиканты, азартные игры), так как «Мерзости сатанинской работы». Оба слова означают «идолы», которые обычно имеют форму людей или животных, или «статуи» фигур, которые можно использовать в качестве кумиров. Два прохода обычно рассматриваются как выражающие возражение на образы, но их более правильно истолковывают как противостоящие идолам независимо от их формы. Третий проход более конкретный и, следовательно, более уместен. В п. 3: 47-9 Бог говорит Марии (q.v.): "Бог создает то, что хочет. Когда он что-то укажет, он только говорит, что это «быть», и это так ". Примером может служить пример Иисуса (q.v.), который приходит со следующим сообщением: " Я пришел к вам со знаком вашего господина. Я сделаю для вас из глины фигуру птицы. Я буду дышать в нём, и он станет [настоящей] птицей по Божьему отпуску ". Здесь ясно, что создание представления имеет смысл только в том случае, если жизнь дается этому представлению. Поскольку отдача жизни принадлежит только Богу, только с его разрешения может возникнуть создание трехмерной и реалистичной птицы. Эти несколько конкретных отрывков, касающихся представлений, не являются окончательными сами по себе, но они служили важными ориентирами в более позднем развитии противостояния созданию изображений. Они приобрели особую важность, когда ставили рядом со вторым типом аргумента, основанного меньше на конкретных отрывках, чем на двух темах, которые пронизывают Коран: абсолютную оппозицию идолопоклонству и уникальность Бога как творца. Эти две исламские доктрины использовались в качестве аргументов против легитимности образов, пока изображения действительно поклонялись, и существовала вера в то, что они участвовали в духе того, что было представлено. Также может быть опасно, что они утратили свою уместность после того, как прежнее уравнение больше не удерживается. На протяжении многих лет было написано много статей о том, что абстракция, визуальное искажение и орнаментация происходят с такой частотой в исламском искусстве, потому что господствующие мусульманские покровители и художники стремились соответствовать доктрине, которая всегда была направлена ​​на уравнение представления и представленного. Согласно этой точке зрения, необходимо было найти альтернативные способы выражения, чтобы избежать критики или даже осуждения за соперничество с Богом в результате такой предполагаемой доктрины. Другая доктрина, которая, как утверждается, была получена из Корана, — это противопоставление роскоши, что можно назвать идеалом разумного аскетизма в частной и общественной жизни. Его предпосылка заключается в том, что искусство — это роскошь, точка, которую, безусловно, аргументировали фундаменталистские группы и более умеренно моралисты на протяжении веков. Хотя это достаточно распространено в любом религиозном движении с популистской базой, поскольку ислам, безусловно, был в начале, такую ​​доктрину трудно представить как та, которая сохранялась в значительном масштабе на протяжении всего времени, и даже её qur’annic-основа несколько неопределенна. Несмотря на ряд противоположных аргументов, в целом трудно объяснить развитие исламского искусства посредством доктрин, полученных из Корана. Это мнение может показаться правильным, потому что слишком много проблем не получили должного внимания. Вместо этого он, похоже, уходит своими корнями в сложные непредвиденные обстоятельства новой этики, сталкивающейся с хорошо развитыми культурами мира с их богатым визуальным наследием. Существует необходимость в тщательном изучении терминологии, непосредственно или потенциально связанной с искусством. Слова, подобные aṣnām (идолам), anṣāb (идолам), tamāthīl (статуи), ṣūra (форма, q 82: 8), hay’a (форма, q 3:49, 5: 110) — все термины ¶, которые на самом деле ссылаются или подразумевают подобие или копия и предложить какую-то связь с ранее существующим оригиналом. Полное исследование происшествий этих терминов в Коране и в ранней арабской поэзии, а также последующее использование как среди литераторов, так и в технической философской мысли вполне может служить наброском концептуальной основы, подразумеваемой откровением, и дать некоторое представление о что искусство могло иметь в виду в то время. Интересное начало в этом направлении произошло в недавней статье Мухаммада Клааджи, опубликованной в юридическом журнале Саудовской Аравии, в котором на основе набора цитированных цитат говорится о канонической ценности орнамента в исламском искусстве. Более творческая работа молодой французской эстетики Валери Гонсалес (Piège de crystal) вскоре продемонстрирует глубокие философские проблемы, стоящие за упомянутым ранее кураническим отрывком (см. 27:44), в котором Соломон создает объект, таинственный ṣarḥ, который предполагается казаться реальным и пониматься как таковое, фактически не являясь тем, чем кажется. Последствия поражают не только исламское искусство, но и саму природу искусства в целом. Сопоставимые утверждения были сделаны сюрреалистами двадцатого века, такими как Рене Магритт. Однако такие усилия при интерпретации, адаптированной к потребностям, вкусам и парадигмам нашего века, редки. Также они вполне могут идти против толкования, которое утверждает, что только в своей исторической правде можно принять божественное послание. В целом, нет никаких сомнений в том, что Коран будет продолжать добываться для ответов на эстетические и социальные потребности мусульманских обществ и культур по мере их развития со временем. Кроме того, довольно ясно, однако, что искусство не вызывало значительного беспокойства по поводу откровения и не играло большой роли в распространенных образцах жизни на Аравийском полуострове в первые десятилетия первого / седьмого века. Необычные и сложные объекты в основном отсутствовали в окрестностях Мекки и Медины, и видение архитектуры было ограничено простой Каабой. Было видение искусства и архитектуры, основанных на легендах Соломона и воспоминаниях о древних арабских королевствах. Руины в пустыне или в степи могли тогда, как и сейчас, трансформироваться в миражи потерянного искусственного мира огромных масштабов. Однако не кажется, что среда, в которой появился Коран, действительно знала о великих художественных традициях Средиземноморья, Месопотамии, Ирана, Индии или даже Йемена и Эфиопии. Кроме того, в Коране нет никаких следов неопластических дискуссий о природе искусства. Появляющаяся универсальная мусульманская культура должна искать в ответах Корана ответы на вопросы, которые были сформулированы только позже. Использование Корана в более позднем искусстве Хорошо известно, что сценарий играл важную роль в искусстве всех мусульманских земель, независимо от того, было ли это искусство преимущественно светским или религиозным (см. Арабский сценарий). Большие надписи являются общей частью украшения зданий, и многие объекты имеют длинные полоски или короткие кармашки с письмом, иногда даже с подделками письма. Эти надписи часто были идентифицированы в старых каталогах и описаниях как «Коранические» без надлежащей заботы о том, что они действительно говорят. Разумеется, верно, что эти надписи имеют декоративную или эстетическую ценность, которая не зависит от того, что они передают. Чтобы организовать предмет, который до сих пор не уделял мало внимания, он был разбит на два заголовка: иконографическое использование Корана и формальное использование сценариев qur'ānic. Иконографическое использование Основоположник систематического изучения арабской эпиграфики (см. Эпиграфию и куран), Макс ван Берхем, был первым ученым, который установил, что большинство формальных надписей в монументальной архитектуре состоят из цитат из Корана, которые несут или могут иметь отношение к функции из зданий, на которых они были найдены. Он инициировал систематическое издание с комментариями всех арабских надписей. Начиная с 1931 года они были опубликованы под заголовком «Matériaux pour un corpus inscriptionum arabicarum» как часть памятников Института французской геологии Orientale в Каире. Сам М. ван Берхем опубликовал тома в Каире (с дополнительным томом Г. Витэ), Иерусалиме и Анатолии, а Э. Герцфельд произвел тома в Алеппо. Аналогичный опрос, хотя и менее продуманный в своих комментариях, был сделан Мухаммадом Хусейном для Археологической службы Индии. В последние годы Г. Вит и М. Хавари, используя почти исключительно вторичные источники, выпускали коллекции надписей Мекки. Кроме того, С. Блэр недавно собрал надписи домонгольского Ирана, а М. Шарон опубликовал надписи Палестины. К сожалению, М. ван Берхем принял практику предоставления только числа сур и стихов цитат qur'ānic, как правило, согласно стихотворному разделению издания Г. Флюгеля, который не всегда согласуется с нынешним египетским изданием. Поэтому возникают проблемы, когда вы пытаетесь определить точную формулировку надписи. Хотя самые последние публикации отказались от этой практики, она все ещё находится в самом важном корпусе арабской эпиграфики, в восемнадцати томах, опубликованных до сих пор в Matériaux, наклеивают un corpus inscriptionum arabicarum. Из всех этих усилий был сделан особенно важный инструмент. Эрика Додд и Шерейн Хайралла произвели произведение. Изображение слова, первый том которого содержит список всех фрагментов qur'ānic, приведенных в надписях и где они были использованы, что позволяет изучать частоту использования определённых проходов и временные или географические различия в их использовании. Второй том состоит из серии эссе об отдельных памятниках и вопросах, которые возникают из этих каталогов, например, почему некоторые надписи были размещены в разных местах на разных памятниках. Все эссе показывают влияние крупной статьи, написанной Э. Доддом в 1969 году под названием «Образ этого слова», в котором излагаются исторические и психологические предпосылки существования иконописи Корана. Она утверждает, что, пытаясь избежать или даже отвергнуть религиозные образы христианства и язычества, основной поток исламской культуры заменил образы словами всякий раз, когда он хотел сделать какую-то набожную, идеологическую или другую точку. В рамках этой схемы Коран был выдающимся как из-за его святости, так и потому, что большинство мусульман были знакомы с ним. Поэтому зритель ценит значимость выбора отдельных отрывков из Корана и интерпретирует их в соответствии с ожиданиями патрона. Можно отметить, что буддизм и индуизм, похоже, не были связаны с формированием исламской культуры, хотя это утверждение может быть изменено будущими исследованиями. Несмотря на то, что эта формальная доктрина никогда не была установлена ​​как формальная доктрина, эта «иконография» божест-венного слова развивалась довольно рано в исламские времена под властью Умайяда (р. 41 / 661—132 / 750). Возможно, было бы правильным связать свою внешность с халифом «Абд аль-Малик» (р. 65 / 685-86 / 705), который сделал ¶ язык администрирования арабским и ввел арабские надписи на чеканку. Для последнего, так называемый «стих миссии», «Он [Бог] послал своего посланника с руководством и религией истины, чтобы провозгласить его над всей религией, хотя язычники могут ненавидеть её» (д. 9:33). , см. стихи) стала стандартной формулой для тысяч и тысяч монет. Это, по сути, довольно примечательно, как редко использовались альтернативные проходы. Даже если в североафриканской чеканке, обозначенной в североафриканской чеканке (Х. У. Хазард, нумизматическая история), содержится шестьдесят одна цитата из qur'ānic, многие из них являются лишь благочестивыми заявлениями, а не более полными цитатами и не должны рассматриваться как иконографически или семантически значимые цитаты. Идеологическое и политическое утверждение истины, сделанное проходом, выбранным для монет, легко объяснить для чеканки, которая использовалась во всем мире и которая, в частности, конкурировала в своих надписях с византийским золотом и серебром. Ещё довольно рано, что стеклянные весы и марки, используемые для внутреннего потребления, получили в качестве украшения «Дайте только меру и не попадете в число обманутых» (q 26: 181, G.C. Miles, ). Этот выбор демонстрирует значительную и очень раннюю изощренность в манипулировании кураническими отрывками как для благочестивых, так и для практических целей. Наиболее впечатляющее раннее использование цитат qur’annic в здании происходит в Куполе Скалы (датировано 71/691) в Иерусалиме, где 240 метров надписей Омейядов, которые идут по обеим сторонам купола купола, делятся на семь неравных секций, каждый из которых начинается фраза, известная как басмала (qv): «Во имя Бога, милосердного и сострадательного». Первые пять разделов содержат стандартные провозглашения мусульманской веры. «Бога нет, кроме Бога, один, без общения» является наиболее распространенным из них. Существует также серия коротких паси-мудрецов, которые, вероятно, выписаны из Корана (q 112, 35:36, 17: 111, 64: 1 в сочетании с 57: 2), но которые также могут быть просто благочестивыми утверждениями, не принимаемыми из Корана. Шестой раздел содержит исторические данные, а седьмая, занимающая половину пространства, повторяет несколько формул или цитат из первой половины, а затем создает композицию из q 4: 171-2; 19: 33-6 и 3: 18-19 с одним незначительным дополнением в середине. Это утверждение раскрывает основные черты христологии Корана (см. Христиане и христианство, писание и куран), что имеет смысл в городе, который в то время был главным церковным и преданным центром христианства. Другие надписи в Куполе Скалы используют различные комбинации q 2: 255 и 2: 112 (или 3: 1 и 6: 106); 3:26; 6:12 и 7: 156, 9:33, 2: 139 или 3:78 (слегка изменённый), чтобы прояснить эсхатологическую и миссионерскую цель здания. Несмотря на то, что этот вопрос все ещё находится под большим обсуждением, возможно, что передача текста qur'ānic, используемого для украшения Купола Скалы, была выполнена устно, а не через письменные копии текста. Это, по-видимому, объясняет тот факт, что многие из надписей не совсем согласуются с формулировкой самой распространенной версии Корана в обращении. Хотя использование qur'ānic-перехода q 9:33 на монетах оставалось стандартной процедурой во всей исламской истории, и выбор стихов, сделанных для купола Скалы, оставался уникальным, другие цитаты появляются в нескольких ранних исламских надписях и заслуживают подробного изучения , Так обстоит дело с сериями, известными из более поздних текстов, надписей из Мекки и Медины (см. Rcea, № 38, 40, 46-52, G. Wiet и H. Harawy, Matériux) с преимущественно религиозным содержанием. Любопытный написанный граффитом в Медине от 117/735 содержит длинную цитату, касающуюся веры (rcea, № 30), но её контекст неясен и немного тревожен. Таких опасений по поводу фрагмента надписи, найденной на напольной мозаике, нет в частном доме, вероятно, из периода Омейядов, раскопанного в Рамаллахе в Палестине. Он содержит фрагмент q 7: 205 «Не будьте среди необоснованных» рядом с представлением арки, которая может быть или не быть miḥrāb (Розен-Аялон, первая мозаика). Фактическая точка надписи и причина, по которой эта особая цитата была выбрана, все ещё трудно объяснить. Эти ранние примеры указывают на значительное количество экспериментов по использованию цитат qur'ānic в течение первых двух столетий мусульманского правления. Определённая норма стала установлена ​​с третьего по девятый век вперед. Эпитафии почти всегда будут содержать Тронный стих q 2: 255, sūra 112 целиком или оба. Эти стихи провозглашают подавляющую и уникальную силу Бога. Часто эти отрывки сопровождаются q 9:33 с его миссионерской универсальностью. Мечети будут иметь тронный стих и q 9:18, начиная с «Масаджид Божий будет посещаться и поддерживаться такими, как верить в Бога и в последний день». Мишрабы имеют свою собственную qur’аническую иконографию с прекрасным q 24:35: " Бог есть свет небес и земли, притча о его свете (qv), как если бы была ниша [mishkāt, ещё один таинственный архитектурный термин], и внутри неё была лампа, лампа, заключенная в стекле, стекло как блестящая звезда, освещенная благословенным деревом, оливковая ни на Востоке, ни на Западе, масло которой светлое, хотя огонь почти не касается его. Свет на свет, Бог направляет тех, кого он пожелает, к своему свету ". Не удивительно, что украшение мишрабов и надгробных камней часто включало лампы, висящие в нише и древовидных растительных орнаментах. История этой иконографии все ещё находится в зачаточном состоянии, но почти каждый крупный памятник исламской архитектуры несет наряду с общими и часто повторяющимися отрывками цитаты, выражающие какую-то особую функцию или цель или ссылки на события, которые были в основном забыты. Примеры включают великую мечеть Исфахана (О. Грабар, Великая мечеть); минареты Ирана (Дж. Сурдель-Томин, Деу-минареты и С. Блэр, памятные надписи); поразительный минарет в Джаме в Афганистане (А. Марик и Дж. Виет, ); надписи небольшой мечети аль-Акмар в Каире, которая выражает стремления Шии через цитаты qur'ānic (C. Williams, The cult); Газнавидский дворец Лашкар-и-Базар в Афганистане, который является единственным зданием, известным до сих пор, чтобы использовать соломоновское обращение к q 27:44 (J. Sourdel-Thomine, Lashkar-i bazar); юридическая школа Firdaws (медресе) в Алеппо, где встречается относительно необычный проход qur'ānic (см. 43: 68-72) вместе с необычайным мистическим текстом, сделанным таким образом, как надпись qur'ānic (Y. Tabbaa, Constructions of power). В великих мавзолееях императоров Великих Моголов Индии (р. 932 / 1526—1274 / 1858) множество надписей qur'ānic позволило некоторым ученым (У. Бегли и З. А. Десаи, Тадж-Махал) интерпретировать сами здания в необычном как немного кощунственные попытки создать на земле собственный рай Бога. Эти интерпретации не убедили всех историков, но по-прежнему остается, что выбор надписей и цитат qur'ānic не является случайным и отражает точные проблемы со стороны меценатов и представляет собой мощное послание внешнему миру. В общем, вполне правильно сделать вывод, что цитаты qur'ānic важны для компонентов исламского искусства, особенно архитектуры. Они стали частью памятника и служили гарантами или свидетелями его функции и причин ¶ для её создания. Они могут быть очень персонализированными, как в эпифафах, заполняющих кладбища, где бесконечно повторяющиеся заявления привязаны к людям или более общие провозглашения власти, славы или добрых дел, проецируемых всему человечеству и особенно верующим. Однако неясно, насколько эти сообщения были фактически поняты и поглощены. Это, в частности, вопрос оценки уровня грамотности, который существовал на протяжении веков или во время строительства здания. Это также вопрос поиска в хрониках и других источниках, в которых описываются города и здания, фактические обсуждения выбора сделанных надписей. Эти описания, однако, удивительно редки. Часто кажется, что этот мощный визуальный инструмент, из которого современные ученые вывели так много интерпретаций, в свое время не был замечен. Поэтому многое предстоит сделать, изучая реакцию культуры на свою собственную практику, если нужно принять позицию, согласно которой использование слова qur’annic можно приравнять к использованию образов в других религиозных системах. Вполне возможно, что современная, прежде всего западная, стипендия неправильно поняла смысл этих цитат, произвольно установив такое уравнение. Увлекательным образом, современная сцена стала свидетелем довольно интересных преобразований этой иконографической практики. Недавно построенная мечеть в Тегеране, мечеть аль-Гадир, спроектированная архитектором Джахангиром Мазлумом и завершенная в 1987 году, покрыта большими письменными заявлениями, в основном в глазурованных или неглазурованных кирпичах. Некоторые из этих каллиграфических панелей действительно размещены как иконы или изображения в церкви и содержат кураничные проходы. Другие — благочестивые заявления или молитвы, например, девяносто девять имен Бога на потолке и бесконечно повторяющаяся профессия веры (см. Исповедь веры). В то время как эстетический успех структуры спорный, само здание впечатляет тем, что его использование настолько хорошо вписано в ткань стены, что его разборчивость уменьшена, а её ценность как письменное заявление трудно воспринимать. Это почти так, как будто трудность чтения слов вносит свой вклад в их эстетические и благочестивые ценности (м. Фаламаки, мечеть аль-Гадир). Во многих других современных мечетях, особенно монументальных, есть примеры тех же трудностей (Р. Холод и Х. Хан, Мечеть). Особенно впечатляющее использование Корана было предложено архитектором Басилом аль-Баяти для города Эр-Рияд в Саудовской Аравии. Он предвидел огромные арки в виде открытых книг Корана по главной магистрали, ведущей в город, как своего рода процессуальная аллея, приветствующая посетителя. Однако проект не был выполнен. Тем не менее открытая книга появляется как фасад мечети, спроектированной тем же архитектором в Алеппо, и пакистанский скульптор Гульгей создал потрясающий свободно стоящий мизраб в виде двух листьев из открытого Корана для мечети короля Фейсала в Исламабаде. Эффект поражает, если он тревожит тех, кто привык к традиционным формам, но демонстрирует современное расширение иконографии, взятой из Корана, той, которая использует книгу как модель. Недавние события, будь то успешные или нет, свидетельствуют о том, что будущее будет свидетелем дальнейших экспериментов по использованию Корана в качестве книги или источника цитирований для улучшения архитектуры, особенно в отношении мечетей, и для отправки религиозных и идеологических сообщений. Таким образом, вскоре после окончания Культурной революции в преимущественно мусульманской китайской провинции Синьцзян скромная доска у входа в отреставрированную мечеть в маленьком городке Турфан (Туфу на китайском языке) на краю Таримского бассейна, процитированная в ¶ Арабский сценарий, который, по-видимому, был недоступен для тайной полиции, q 9:17: "Не для идолопоклонников обитают богослужения (масаджид), свидетельствующие о неверии против самих себя. Их работа потерпела неудачу и в огне они навсегда останутся ". Таким образом, Коран продолжает отражать страсти, потребности и стремления мусульман повсюду. Формы Корана Благодаря важным недавним исследованиям в палеографии раннего арабского языка (F. Déroche, Les manuscrits du Coran, Y. Tabbaa, The transform; E. Whelan, Дать слово) и потрясающему открытию около сорока тысяч пергаментных страниц раннего исламского рукописи Корана в Йемене, мы начинаем понимать эволюцию арабского шрифта, используемого в рукописях Корана, несмотря на полное отсутствие должным образом датированных примеров до третьего / девятого века. Разнообразие ранних сценариев уже было признано библиографом Ибн аль-Надимом (д. 385/995), а современные коллекционеры превратили ранние страницы того, что известно в торговле как «Kūfic», записывающее в произведения искусства, которые часто приходят высокие цены на рынке. Гораздо сложнее решить, действительно ли эти ранние рукописи имели официальную эстетическую ценность, не зависящую от их священного содержания. Некоторые из них приобрели множество форм декоративных деталей, которые будут рассмотрены в следующем разделе этой записи. Также трудно оценить, были ли они или многие стили углового письма, обнаруженные в руке Ṣан’а или в другом месте, предназначались в первую очередь для удовольствия наблюдателя. Вопросы значительно изменились после введения пропорционального сценария (аль-ха-ха-аль-мансуба) визирем Аббасида Ибн Мукла (d. 328/940) в четвёртом-десятом веке. Создание модульной системы письма позволило создать ¶ каноны для сценариев и вариаций этих сценариев вокруг четко определённых норм. В результате со времен маленького Корана Ибн аль-Бавваба (d. 413/1022) в Библиотеке Честер Битти, датированной 391/1001 (DS Rice, Уникальный Ибн аль-Бавваб) до сегодняшнего дня, тысячи профессиональных книжники и художники стремились создавать вариации на обычные сценарии, которые привлекали бы и угождали бы глазам покупателей. Эти сценарии не были ограничены текстом Корана, но, за исключением рукописей персидской поэзии, святой книгой был текст, на котором было затрачено наибольшее усилие. Об этом свидетельствуют великолепные кораны мамлюков (г. 648 / 1250—922 / 1517) в Египте, Сирии и Палестине, а также шланхиды (г. 654 / 1256—754 / 1353) в Персии (Д. Джеймс, Коран и после Тимура). Также для точного чтения текста qur'ānic диакритические знаки и другие идентифицирующие знаки были тщательно интегрированы в состав слов и букв, не умаляя наличия текста. Уже со знаменитым «Qarmatian» Qur'ān пятого / одиннадцатого или шестого / двенадцатого веков, листья которого распространены по всему миру (B. St. Laurent, идентификация), каждая страница стала составной сущностью, которую можно увидеть и оценил сам по себе и в котором письменность и орнамент устанавливаются в равномерном балансе. Потенциальный конфликт между формой и содержанием начался, причем первое имеет большее значение для обычных верующих, а второе — для коллекционеров художественного письма или каллиграфии. Совершенствование Корана через искусство Уже упоминались два аспекта совершенствования Корана: разновидности стилей письма и добавление небольших, декоративных, обычно абстрактных или цветочных, в середине самого текста или на полях. В какой-то момент были введены большие ¶ заголовки между сурами и некоторыми из этих приобретенных декоративных рисунков. Группа страниц, предположительно в египетской национальной библиотеке в Каире, но не замеченная со времени их публикации Б. Морицем почти столетие назад, использует аркады и другие архитектурные особенности, возможно, представляющие или символизирующие места молитвы, а также геометрические и цветочные орнаменты , Большие цветочные композиции проецируются на поля, а дизайн этих заголовков сравнивается с табула ансатами классической древности. В Мамлуке, Īlkhānid или более поздних рукописях карты с названиями каждой суры часто резко отделены от собственно текста, в то время как в более ранних рукописях они более тесно переплетены друг с другом. Улучшение также может быть обеспечено путем изменения размера. Есть небольшие экземпляры Корана и гигантские, такие как Тимурид, для которого требуется специальный стенд, и страницы которого нельзя читать и поворачивать одновременно. Счета каллиграфов, особенно в Иране, часто похвастаются такими подвигами чудесных преобразований священной книги, тем самым иллюстрируя основную традиционную эстетическую ценность быть «удивительным» ("ajīb "). Коран также удостоился причудливых и дорогостоящих привязок. Особенно ценные копии были даже сохранены в специальных коробках. Когда правитель Альмохадов Абд аль-Мумин (р. 524 / 1130—558 / 1163) получил от народа Кордовы копию Корана, предположительно принадлежавшего к халифу Утману (т. 23 / 644-35 / 656) и сохранив следы его крови, он нанял ювелиров, металлистов, художников и кожаных работников, чтобы их украсить. В османские времена (р. 680 / 1281—1342 / 1924) особенно красивые шкафы были сделаны для хранения страниц и рукописей священной книги. В целом ясно и не удивительно, что многие методы использовались для почернения рукописей Корана ¶, делая их более привлекательными и захватывающими, чем другие книги, и рассматривая их как драгоценные предметы, если не буквально, как произведения искусства , Труднее решить, являются ли определённые стили написания, определённые методы привязки, определённые способы украшения страниц и определённые мотивы, как правило, так и исключительно, ограничиваются Кораном. Аргумент может быть сделан для составления страниц после пятого / одиннадцатого века и для сценариев, которые, угловатые или скорописные, были написаны с особой осторожностью, когда они использовались для священного текста. Более ориентировочно можно утверждать, что некоторые виды декоративной черты, такие как маргинальные орнаменты, которые также служили сигнальными разделениями в тексте, были исключительно ограничены Кораном. Однако все эти гипотезы все ещё ждут расследования и обсуждения. Трудность, которую они представляют, хорошо иллюстрируется двумя уникальными до сих пор страницами из Йемена, которые были опубликованы Х. К. фон Ботмер (архитектор) и обсуждается О. Грабаром (посредничество). Они иллюстрируют крупные архитектурные ансамбли, которые интерпретируются как мечети, показанные в любопытном, но не уникальном сочетании планов и возвышений. Действительно ли это изображения мечетей? Если да, то являются ли они представлениями конкретных зданий или воскрешениями общих типов? Могут ли они быть иллюстрациями проходов в Коране, описывающих здания в раю? До сих пор нет твердых ответов на эти вопросы, но можно предположить, что существует сложный словарь форм, более или менее ограниченный улучшением Корана. Эти формы действительно создали искусство. См. Также .

The relationship between the revealed scripture of Islam and attitudes towards art and architecture and the practice thereof will be discussed under three headings: 1. Qurʾānic references or allusions to art and architecture, including passages later ¶ cited with respect to artistic creativity, even if they were not initially so intended; 2. The uses of the Qurʾān as a source for citations in the making and decorating of works of art; and 3. The enhancement of the Qurʾān itself through art. Art and architecture in the Qurʾān It must be stated at the outset that, with the partial exception of q 27:44, which will be discussed later, the Qurʾān does not contain any statement which may be construed as a description of manufactured things or as a doctrinal guide for making or evaluating visually perceptible forms. The world in which the revelation of the Qurʾān was made was not one which knew or particularly prized works of art and later ḥadīth — the reports recording the Prophet’s words and deeds — only briefly mention a few fancy textiles owned by the members of the entourage of the Prophet. Furthermore, although ḥadīth do attribute to the Prophet theoretical positions or practical opinions on the making of works of art, none is directly asserted in the Qurʾān itself, but only deduced from various passages. Finally, while the Qurʾān is quite explicit about such practices as prayer (q.v.) or pilgrimage (q.v.) being specifically restricted to Muslims, it provides no direct or implied definition or even a requirement for a particular locale for the accomplishment of these practices. For all these reasons, the consideration of art and architecture in the Qurʾān does not lead to a coherent whole, but to a series of disjointed observations which may be divided into two groups: the direct references to things made or to spaces built; and the indirect implications for the making of things and the design of spaces. Direct references There are, first of all, references to categories of manufacture and especially of con-¶ struction. One rather striking set of examples involves concrete items which are mentioned only once. All of them are described as being in the possession of Solomon (q.v.), the prophet-king whose patronage for works of art was legendary and whose artisans were usually the no less legendary jinn (q.v.). In q 34:12 he ordered the making of a fountain of molten brass, a Muslim adaptation of the celebrated brazen sea in Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem (q.v.) as it is described in 2 Kings 25:13 and 1 Chron 18:8. Then in q 34:13, the jinn manufacture for him maḥārīb, tamāthīl, jifān of enormous size and qudūr which were anchored down so that they could not easily be removed. The meaning of the word miḥrāb (sing. of maḥārīb), which will be discussed later, appears in other contexts as well. Jifān — meaning some sort of receptacle, usually translated as "porringer, " a term of sufficiently vague significance to hide our uncertainty as to what was really involved — and qudūr, «cooking-pots» are only mentioned in this particular passage. The exact meaning and function of these two items are somewhat mysterious. Timthāl, also in the plural, appears again in q 21:52, where it clearly refers to the idols worshiped by the father of Abraham (q.v.). These idols would have been sculptures of humans or of animals and it is probably sculptures in general rather than idols in particular that must be understood in q 34:13 (see idols and images). The association of Solomon with unusual buildings is confirmed by q 27:44, where, in order to test the Queen of Sheba (q.v.) and ultimately to demonstrate his superiority to her, Solomon orders the construction of a ṣarḥ covered or paved with slabs of glass (mumarrad min qawārīr). Usually translated as «pavilion» or "palace, " the word ṣarḥ occurs also in q 28:38 and q 40:36. Both times it is modified by the adjective «high» and refers to a construction ordered by Pha-¶ raoh (q.v.). Since all these passages deal with mythical buildings and because the root of the word implies purity and clarity, the term may reflect the attribute of transparency in a building, rather than its form. It would then be a pavilion comparable to the elaborate construction alleged to have existed on top of pre-Islamic Yemeni palaces. Generally speaking, it seems preferable to understand the term as a "constructed space of considerable merit and attractiveness, " without being more specific, though the matter remains open to debate. What is of import here is not the exact meaning of the term but the presence within the qurʾānic images of works of art that have not been seen, but only imagined. Further on it will be seen that the story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (see bilqīs), as told in the Qurʾān, has many additional implications for the arts. A second category of qurʾānic terms dealing with or applicable to the arts consists of much more ordinary words. There is a series of terms for settlements, such as qarya (q 25:51), usually the term for a city as well as for smaller settlements; madīna, a word used only twice (q 28:18, 20), possessing very broad connotations; masākin «[ruined] dwellings» (q 29:38), which often occurs in poetry; and a more abstract term like balad in al-balad al-amīn, «the place of security» (q 95:3), which is probably a reference to Mecca (q.v.). Bayt is the common word for a house and it is supposed to be a place of privacy (q 3:49; 4:100; 24:27-9), a quality which has been sought until today by architects building in what they assume to be an Islamic tradition. The word was used for the dwellings of the wives of the Prophet (q.v.; q 33:33-4), for whom privacy was an essential criterion, and also for the presumably fancy abode of Zuleika, the wife of Potiphar (q 12:23; see joseph). When it is mentioned as adorned with gold (q.v.; q 17:93), it is meant pejoratively as an ¶ expression of vainglorious wealth. Dār occurs occasionally (e.g. q 17:5; 59:2) with no clear distinction from bayt except insofar as it implies some broader function as in al-dār al-ākhira in q 28:83 indicating «the space of thereafter.» The rather common word qaṣr (castle, palace) occurs only four times, twice metaphorically, once in a well-known cliché referring to the destroyed «palaces» of old and once with reference to paradise (q.v.) in a passage which will be examined later. Other terms for something built or at least identified spatially are rarer, like mathwā (dwelling, q 47:19) or maṣāniʿ (buildings, q 26:129). There are a few instances when techniques of construction are indicated, often in a metaphorical way as in q 13:2, where the heavens are depicted as a miraculous, divine creation built without columns. A third category of terms consists of words which, whatever their original meaning, acquired a specifically Muslim connotation at the time of the Prophet or later. The two most important ones are masjid and miḥrāb. Masjid (place of prostration, see mosque) occurs twenty-eight times in the Qurʾān. In fifteen instances it is modified by al-ḥarām, a reference to the Meccan sanctuary whose pre-Islamic holiness was preserved and transformed by the Muslim revelation, i.e. the Kaʿba (q.v.), the holy house (al-bayt al-ḥarām in q 53:97) which Abraham and Ishmael (q.v.) built (q 2:125). It is mentioned as the qibla (q.v.) or direction of prayer (q 2:142-7) and as the aim of the pilgrimage (q 5:96-7). However, nothing is said about its form or about the space around it and there is only a vague reference to the importance of its proper maintenance (q 9:19). Even this action is not as important as professing the faith in all of its truth. In q 17:1, the word is once used for the Meccan sanctuary while in q 17:7 it refers to the Jewish temple in Jerusalem (q.v.). The word is used a second ¶ time in q 17:1 in the expression «the farthest mosque» (al-masjid al-aqṣā), the exact identification of which has been the subject of much debate (see aqṣā mosque). There is no doubt that, at some point in history and possibly as early as the mid-second/eighth century, it became generally understood as a reference to Jerusalem. This, however, was not the case during the first century after Muḥammad’s emigration to Medina (hijra, see emigration), when it was identified by many as a place in the neighborhood of Mecca or as a symbolic space in a miraculous event (see ascension). The remaining ten occurrences of masjid do not form a coherent whole except insofar as they all mention a place where God is worshiped (q 7:29). It literally belongs to God (q 72:18, a passage often used in mosque inscriptions, see below) and unbelievers are banned from it (q 9:17). «Those who believe in God and his last day, practice regular prayer and give to charity, and fear none but God must maintain and frequent [the verb ʿamara has a complex range of meanings] the mosques of God» (q 9:18, another passage frequently used in inscriptions). In recounting the story of the seven sleepers of Ephesus (see men of the cave), the Qurʾān asserts that God built a masjid over them (q 18:21). A most curious and somewhat obscure passage is q 22:40, which contains a list of sanctuaries that would have been destroyed had God not interfered to save them. The list includes ṣawāmiʿ , biyaʿ, ṣalawāt and masājid, usually — but there are variants — translated as «monasteries [or cloisters], churches, synagogues and mosques.» The first two words are never again used in the Qurʾān. The third term, ṣalawāt, is the plural of ṣalāt, the word commonly used for the Muslim ritual prayer. Here it seems to mean a place rather than the act of prayer. But the sequence itself suggests four differ-¶ ent kinds of sacred spaces, probably representing four different religious traditions. If there are four religious groups implied, Islam, Judaism and Christianity are easy to propose — even if one does not quite know which term goes with which system of faith —, what is the fourth religion? It is, in fact, with some skepticism that the word masājid is translated as «mosques» since nowhere else in the Qurʾān is the word masjid used alone to be understood correctly as a place of prayer restricted to Muslims. It always means a generally holy space which could be used by Muslims. This verse must, therefore, be connected to some particular event or story whose specific connotations are unknown. In short, the proper conclusion to draw from the evidence is that, while the Qurʾān clearly demonstrates the notion of a sacred or sanctified space, it does not identify a specifically Muslim space as a masjid. The only specifically Muslim space mentioned in the Qurʾān is the masjid of Mecca and its sacred enclosure. The vagueness of nearly all references to it may explain some of the later problems in actually defining the exact direction of prayer (qibla). Was it toward the city of Mecca (q.v.), a large enclosure, the Kaʿba, one of its sides or the black stone in its corner? In short, the word masjid — destined for a long and rich history in Arabic and in many other languages — soon after the death of the Prophet in 11/632 came to mean a special type of building restricted to Muslims. In the Qurʾān it appears to have a very broad significance with a very uncertain relationship to exclusively Islamic worship. Matters are almost as complicated with the word miḥrāb, which also possesses a range of practical and symbolic meanings. It too was destined for a long and distinguished history as the name for the niche indicating the direction of prayer on the wall of all Muslim sanctuaries. The term ¶ miḥrāb also refers to a type of decorative recess found on tombstones, faience panels and rugs. As has been shown in a recent article (N. Khoury, Mihrab), the word originally designated elevated structures which had acquired some sort of honorary significance, although the element of height is only clearly present in one qurʾānic verse. In q 38:21 the disputants go up to the miḥrāb where David (q.v.) is. The honorific quality applies to this particular place by inference as it does in the three instances (q 3:37, 39; 19:11) where the term is used for Zechariah, the servant of God and the father of John the Baptist. When used in the plural maḥārīb (q 34:13), it has usually been interpreted as "places of worship, " but, even if consecrated by tradition, this interpretation does not seem necessary since the other terms listed in this passage — the maḥārīb, tamāthīl, jifān and qudūr (see above) that the jinn manufactured for Solomon — are mostly exemplars of power and wealth rather than of religious, though pagan, needs. Altogether, the exact meaning of this word in the Qurʾān seems to be more secular than pious and bears no direct relationship to the word’s later uses in mosques and as a theme of design. While masjid and miḥrāb became terms to define major elements of Islamic architecture and while other terms dealing with created forms remained consistent and relatively clear (bayt or dār) or rare and fairly obscure (ṣarḥ), there is a category of qurʾānic references to visually-perceived matters which have not been seen, but which nonetheless are held to exist. The numerous accounts of paradise include a great number of references which fall into the category of architecture and planning. These accounts may have had an impact on the design of gardens, most particularly in Mughal India as with the tomb of Akbar in Sikandara near Agra and with the Taj Mahal in Agra itself (see W. Begley ¶ and Z.A. Desai, Taj Mahal, although their arguments are not universally accepted). It has also been argued that these qurʾānic passages were literally illustrated in the decoration of mosques, most specifically in the early second/eighth century mosaics of the Great Mosque of Damascus, also known as the Umayyad Mosque (B. Finster, Die Mosaiken; C. Brisch, Observations) although others (O. Grabar, The formation) have remained more skeptical. Whatever turns out to be appropriate to explain later developments in decoration and in design, an architectural and decorative imagery pervades most of the Qurʾān’s vision of paradise and even, at times, of hell. Both paradise and hell are entered through fancy gates, green being the color of the ones for paradise (q 39:72). Rivers and formal — as opposed to natural — gardens abound (q 43:70-3; 44:51; 47:15; 76:12, among many places; see garden) in paradise. There are also fountains (q 76:6). In a celebrated passage (q 61:12) gardens are described above underground rivers and beautiful dwellings (masākin in q 61:12 or quṣūr in q 25:10) are erected in the gardens. In five passages (q 25:75; 29:58; 34:37; 39:20-1), these dwellings are called ghuraf (sing. ghurfa), in all cases but one modified by the adjective «lofty» with apparently the same equation between height and importance as in the instance of the word miḥrāb. It is difficult to know what was meant or imagined by the term in its singular occurrence in a strange passage (q 25:75), which seems to state that there is only one ghurfa in paradise. Were these meant to be whole architectural establishments or simple pavilions? Inasmuch as we have no means to enter the imaginary world of qurʾānic sensitivity, the question cannot be answered in historical terms, although it possibly, as will be seen, may be entered in the fiction of later art.¶ The same difficulty appears when we try to imagine the khiyām, «tents or pavilions» (q 55:72) in which houris (ḥūr, see houris) are found, the surur (sing. sarīr, one of the several words for "throne, " [q.v.]) with perpetually youthful companions (q 56:15) and especially the throne of God himself. The word for God’s throne is ʿarsh, as in q 40:7, only one of its twenty-nine occurrences in the Qurʾān. Most of the time the word is used in the singular and refers to the throne as the place of divine presence (see sechina). The word ʿarsh is also used once in the story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (q 27:41-2). When used in the plural (ʿurūsh, q 2:259; 18:42; 22:45), it refers to some part of a larger architectural composition. Here it is usually translated as «turrets» or "trellis, " which reflects the uncertainty of the translators and commentators about a feature which is always shown as destroyed by divine wrath. One last visually significant qurʾānic reference dealing with paradise and with visually-perceived matters is that the elect are beautifully dressed (q 35:33; 76:21) and the companions they find there (q 76:15-7) carry vessels (āniya), cups (akwāb) and goblets (kaʾs) polished to look like crystal or silver (this seems to be the correct interpretation of qawārīra min fiḍḍa, q 76:16). Their clothes are of silk (q.v.), the most precious metals are silver and crystal and polished glass is the model for the expected visual effect. These images are important in suggesting the materials and objects which were considered luxurious in early first/seventh century Arabia and also serve as inspiration for later Persian painting, where the association between paradise and luxury through expensive clothes and other objects was fully exploited. Implications for art Quite early passages from the Qurʾān came to be used to justify and explain ¶ Muslim attitudes toward the arts in general and the representation of living beings in particular. This last topic has been and will continue to be the subject of much debate and discussion because it reflects the ever-changing needs and concerns of the prevailing culture and society as much as the actual positions apparent in the Qurʾān. The latter is, on the whole, quite clear. Unlike the second commandment of the Old Testament, there is no opposition to art or to representation, just as there is no call for the creation of works of art or of a material culture that would be distinctly Muslim. Thus terms like «iconoclasm» (a call for the destruction of images) or even the German Bilderverbot (forbidding the making of images) are inappropriate to define any part of the message of the Qurʾān. The term "aniconism, " meaning simply "the absence of a doctrine or even of much thought about representational imagery, " has found favor among some scholars and is more accurate in reflecting the attitude of the Qurʾān. On the other hand, once a broad Muslim culture had been established over vast territories, it was compelled to deal with the rich and varied artistic traditions of the alien cultures it encountered and it sought in the Qurʾān either direct answers to its own questions about the validity of artistic activities or, at the very least, references that could lead to such answers. In the absence of direct statements, three kinds of arguments could be, and were, derived from the Qurʾān. One is based on a few passages which may be construed as dealing with representations. The «statues» made for Solomon (q 34:12-3) have already been mentioned. A more frequently used passage to uphold a prohibition of images is q 6:74, where Abraham, a far more saintly figure than Solomon in the Islamic tradition, says to his father Āzar (q.v.): «Do you take idols ¶ (aṣnām) as gods? Indeed, I see that you and your people are in manifest error.» This passage must be connected with q 5:90, where idols (anṣāb) are also mentioned, together with wine and games of chance (see intoxicants; gambling), as «abominations of Satan’s handiwork.» Both words mean "idols, " which usually have the shape of men or animals, or «statues» of figures that could be used as idols. The two passages are usually seen as expressing an objection to images, but they are more appropriately construed as being in opposition to idols regardless of their shape. A third passage is more specific and, therefore, more pertinent. In q 3:47-9, God says to Mary (q.v.), «God creates what he wills. When he decrees something, he only says to it ‘be’ and it is.» An example is the case of Jesus (q.v.), who comes with the following message: «I have come to you with a sign from your lord. I will make for you out of clay the figure of a bird. I will breathe into it and it will become a [real] bird by God’s leave.» Here it is clear that the making of a representation is only meaningful if life is given to that representation. Since the giving of life is reserved to God alone, it is only with his permission that the creation of a three-dimensional and lifelike bird can occur. These few specific passages dealing with representations are not conclusive in themselves, but they served as important points of reference in the later development of the opposition to the making of images. They acquired their particular importance when put next to a second type of argument based less on specific passages than on two themes which pervade the Qurʾān: the absolute opposition to idolatry and God’s uniqueness as creator. These two Islamic doctrines were used as arguments against the legitimacy of images as long as images were indeed worshiped and the belief existed that they partook of the spirit of what was represented. It may also be ar-¶ gued that they lost their pertinence once the old equation no longer held. Over the years, much has been written arguing that abstraction, visual distortion and ornamentation occur with such frequency in Islamic art because mainstream Muslim patrons and artists sought to conform to a doctrine that always aimed at the equation of the representation and the represented. According to this view, alternate modes of expression had to be found in order to avoid criticism or even condemnation for vying with God, as a result of such an alleged doctrine. Another doctrine alleged to have been derived from the Qurʾān has been that of opposition to luxury, what may be called an ideal of reasonable asceticism in private and public life. Its premise is that art is a luxury, a point which certainly has been argued forcefully by fundamentalist groups and more moderately by moralists down through the centuries. Although common enough in any religious movement with a populist base, as Islam was certainly at the beginning, such a doctrine is difficult to represent as one which has maintained itself on a significant scale throughout time and even its qurʾānic basis is somewhat uncertain. In spite of a number of contrary arguments, on the whole it is difficult to explain the development of an Islamic art through doctrines derived from the Qurʾān. This view may only appear to be correct, because too many problems have not received the proper attention. Instead, it would seem to have its roots in the complex contingencies of a new ethic encountering the well-developed cultures of the world with their rich visual heritage. There is a need for a careful investigation of the terminology dealing, directly or potentially, with the arts. Words like aṣnām (idols), anṣāb (idols), tamāthīl (statues), ṣūra (shape, q 82:8), hayʾa (form, q 3:49; 5:110) are all terms ¶ which actually refer to or imply a likeness or copy and suggest some sort of relationship to a previously existing original. The full investigation of the occurrences of these terms in the Qurʾān and in early Arabic poetry, as well as later usage both among littérateurs and in technical philosophical thought, may well provide a sketch of the conceptual framework implied by the revelation and give some idea of what the arts may have meant at the time. An interesting beginning in that direction occurred in a recent article by Muhammad Qlaaji published in a Saudi Arabian legal journal which argues, on the basis of a set of qurʾānic citations, for the canonical value of ornament in Islamic art. A much more imaginative work by the young French esthetician Valérie Gonzalez(Piège de crystal) will soon demonstrate the deep philosophical problems behind the qurʾānic passage mentioned earlier (q 27:44) in which Solomon creates an object, the mysterious ṣarḥ, which is supposed to appear real and to be understood as such, without in fact being what it appears to be. The implications are striking not only for Islamic art, but for the very nature of art in general. Comparable statements have been made by twentieth-century surrealists like René Magritte. Yet such efforts at an interpretation adapted to the needs, tastes and paradigms of our own century are rare. Also they may well go against an interpretative current which asserts that only in its historical truth can the divine message be accepted. Altogether, there is no doubt that the Qurʾān will continue to be mined for answers to the esthetic and social needs of Muslim societies and cultures as they evolve with time. It is also fairly clear, however, that the arts were not a significant concern of the revelation nor did they play a large role in the modes of life prevalent ¶ in the Arabian peninsula during the first decades of the first/seventh century. Fancy and elaborate objects were largely absent in the surroundings of Mecca and Medina and the vision of architecture was limited to the simple Kaʿba. There was a vision of art and architecture based on the legends of Solomon and memories of the ancient Arabian kingdoms. Ruins in the desert or in the steppe could then, as they do now, be transfigured into mirages of a lost man-made world of awesome proportions. It does not, however, seem that the milieu in which the Qurʾān appeared was truly aware of the great artistic traditions of the Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, Iran, India, or even of the Yemen and Ethiopia . Furthermore, the Qurʾān contains no trace of the neoplatonic debates about the nature of art. The emerging universal Muslim culture had to seek in the Qurʾān answers to questions which were only later formulated. Uses of the Qurʾān in later art It is well known that script played an important part in the arts of all Muslim lands, regardless of whether that art was primarily secular or religious (see arabic script). Large inscriptions are a common part of the decoration of buildings and many objects have long bands or short cartouches with writing, at times even with imitations of writing. These inscriptions often used to be identified in older catalogs and descriptions as «Koranic» without proper concern for what they really say. It is, of course, true that there is an ornamental or esthetic value to these inscriptions which is independent of whatever meaning they convey. In order to organize a subject, which heretofore has received little attention, it has been broken into two headings: iconographic uses of the Qurʾān and formal uses of qurʾānic scripts.¶ Iconographic uses The founder of the systematic study of Arabic epigraphy (see ), Max van Berchem, was the first scholar to establish that most formal inscriptions in monumental architecture consist of citations from the Qurʾān which bear or may bear a relationship to the function of the buildings on which they were found. He initiated the systematic publication with commentary of all Arabic inscriptions. Beginning in 1931 these were published under the title Matériaux pour un corpus inscriptionum arabicarum as part of the Mémoires of the Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale in Cairo. M. van Berchem himself published the volumes on Cairo (with a supplementary volume by G. Wiet), Jerusalem and Anatolia, while E. Herzfeld produced the volumes on Aleppo. A similar survey, although less elaborate in its commentaries, was made by Muhammad Husain for the Archaeological Survey of India. In recent years, G. Wiet and M. Hawary, using almost exclusively secondary sources, produced collections of the inscriptions of Mecca. In addition, S. Blair recently collected the inscriptions of pre-Mongol Iran and M. Sharon published those of Palestine. Unfortunately, M. van Berchem adopted the practice of providing only the sūra and verse numbers of the qurʾānic quotations, usually according to the verse division of the G. Flügel edition, which does not always agree with the now-standard Egyptian edition. Therefore, there are problems whenever one tries to identify the exact wording of an inscription. Although most recent publications have abandoned this practice, it is still found in the most important corpus of Arabic epigraphy, the eighteen volumes published so far of the Matériaux pour un corpus inscriptionum arabicarum. A particularly important tool has been ¶ derived from all these efforts. Erica Dodd and Shereen Khairallah produced the work The image of the word, the first volume of which contains a list of all of the qurʾānic passages cited in inscriptions and where they have been used, thus allowing one to study the frequency of use of certain passages and the temporal or geographical variations in their use. The second volume is comprised of a series of essays on individual monuments and on questions which grow out of these catalogs, for example why certain inscriptions were placed in different places on different monuments. All of the essays show the influence of a major article written by E. Dodd in 1969 entitled "The image of the word, " outlining the historical and psychological premises behind the existence of an iconography of the Qurʾān. She argues that in trying to avoid or even reject the religious imagery of Christianity and paganism, the mainstream of Islamic culture replaced images with words whenever it wished to make some pious, ideological or other point. Within this scheme, the Qurʾān was pre-eminent both because of its sacredness and because most Muslims were familiar with it. Therefore, the viewer appreciates the significance of the selection of the particular passages from the Qurʾān and interprets them in accordance with the expectations of the patron. It may be noted that Buddhism and Hinduism do not appear to have been pertinent to the formation of Islamic culture, even though this assertion may be modified by future research. Though never established as a formal doctrine, this «iconography» of the divine word developed quite early in Islamic times, under Umayyad rule (r. 41/661-132/750). It might even be proper to associate its appearance with the caliph ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 65/685-86/705), who made the ¶ language of administration Arabic and introduced Arabic inscriptions on the coinage. For the latter, the so-called "mission verse, " «It is [God] who sent his messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to proclaim it over all religion, even though the pagans may detest it» (q 9:33; see verses) became the standard formula for thousands and thousands of coins. It is, in fact, rather remarkable how rarely alternate passages were used. Even if there are sixty-one qurʾānic citations identified in North African coinage (H.W. Hazard, Numismatic history), many are only pious statements rather than fuller citations and should not be considered as iconographically or semantically significant quotations. The ideological and political assertion of truth made by the passage chosen for coins is easy to explain for a coinage that was used all over the world and which, quite specifically, competed in its inscriptions with Byzantine gold and silver. It is also quite early that the glass weights and stamps used for internal consumption received as decoration «Give just measure and be not among the defrauders» (q 26:181; G.C. Miles, Early Arabic glass weights). This selection demonstrates a considerable and very early sophistication in the manipulation of qurʾānic passages for pious as well as practical purposes. The most spectacular early use of qurʾānic quotations on a building occurs in the Dome of the Rock (dated 71/691) in Jerusalem, where 240 meters of Umayyad inscriptions running below on either side of the dome octagon are divided into seven unequal sections, each of which begins with the phrase known as the basmala (q.v.), «In the name of God, the merciful and the compassionate.» The first five sections contain standard proclamations of the Muslim faith. «There is no god but God, one, without associate» is the most common of these. There is also a series of short pas-¶ sages which are probably excerpted from the Qurʾān (q 112; 35:36; 17:111, 64:1 combined with 57:2), but which might also be merely pious statements not taken from the Qurʾān. The sixth section contains historical data while the seventh, occupying half of the space, repeats a few of the formulas or citations from the first half and then creates a composite of q 4:171-2; 19:33-6 and 3:18-19 with only one minor addition in the middle. This statement exposes the main lines of the Christology of the Qurʾān (see ), which makes sense in a city which was at that time a major ecclesiastical and devotional center of Christianity. Other inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock use various combinations of q 2:255 and 2:112 (or 3:1 and 6:106); 3:26; 6:12 and 7:156, 9:33, 2:139 or 3:78 (slightly modified) in order to make clear the eschatological and missionary purpose of the building. Although the matter is still under much discussion, it is possible that the transmission of the qurʾānic text used for the decoration of the Dome of the Rock was done orally rather than through written copies of the text. This would seem to account for the fact that many of the inscriptions do not exactly agree in wording with the most common version of the Qurʾān in circulation. While the use of the qurʾānic passage q 9:33 on coins remained a standard procedure throughout Islamic history and the selection of verses made for the Dome of the Rock remained unique, other citations appear in several early Islamic inscriptions and deserve to be studied in detail. Such is the case with the series, known from later texts, of inscriptions from Mecca and Medina (see rcea, nos. 38, 40, 46-52; G. Wiet and H. Harawy, Matériaux) with a primarily religious content. A curious painted graffito in Medina dated 117/735 contains a long citation dealing with faith (rcea, no. ¶ 30), but its context is unclear and slightly troubling. There are no such concerns about the fragment of an inscription found on a floor mosaic in a private house, probably from the Umayyad period, excavated in Ramallah in Palestine. It contains a fragment of q 7:205 «Do not be among the unheedful» next to the representation of an arch which may or may not be a miḥrāb (Rosen-Ayalon, The first mosaic). The actual point of the inscription and the reason this particular citation was chosen are still difficult to explain. These early examples all suggest a considerable amount of experimentation in the use of qurʾānic citations during the first two centuries of Muslim rule. A certain norm became established from the third/ninth century onward. Epitaphs will almost always contain the Throne Verse q 2:255, sūra 112 in its entirety, or both. These verses proclaim the overwhelming and unique power of God. Often these passages are accompanied by q 9:33 with its missionary universality. Mosques will have the throne verse and q 9:18 beginning with «the masājid of God will be visited and maintained by such as believe in God and the last day.» Miḥrābs have their own qurʾānic iconography with the beautiful q 24:35: «God is the light of the heavens and of the earth, the parable of his light (q.v.) is as if there was a niche [mishkāt, another mysterious architectural term] and within it a lamp, the lamp enclosed in glass, the glass like a brilliant star, lit from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil is luminous, although fire hardly touches it. Light upon light, God guides whom he wills to his light.» There is little wonder that the decoration of miḥrābs and of tombstones often included lamps hanging in a niche and tree-like vegetal ornaments. The history of this iconography is still in its infancy but almost every major monu-¶ ment of Islamic architecture bears, in addition to the common and frequently repeated passages, citations expressing some special function or purpose or references to events which have been mostly forgotten. Examples include the great mosque of Isfahan (O. Grabar, The great mosque); the minarets of Iran (J. Sourdel-Thomine, Deux minarets and S. Blair, Monumental inscriptions); the striking minaret at Jām in Afghanistan (A. Maricq and G. Wiet, Le minaret and J. Moline, The minaret); the inscriptions of the small al-Aqmar mosque in Cairo, which expresses Shīʿī aspirations through qurʾānic citations (C. Williams, The cult); the Ghaznavid palace of Lashkar-i Bāzār in Afghanistan, which is the only building known so far to have used the Solomonic reference of q 27:44 (J. Sourdel-Thomine, Lashkar-i bazar); the Firdaws law school (madrasa) in Aleppo, where a relatively unusual qurʾānic passage (q 43:68-72) is found together with an extraordinary mystical text made to look like a qurʾānic inscription (Y. Tabbaa, Constructions of power). In the great mausoleums of the Mughal emperors of India (r. 932/1526-1274/1858), a wealth of qurʾānic inscriptions have allowed some scholars (W. Begley and Z.A. Desai, Taj Mahal) to interpret the buildings themselves in an unusual way as slightly blasphemous attempts to create on earth God’s own paradise. These interpretations have not convinced all historians, but the point still remains that the choice of inscriptions and of qurʾānic citations is not accidental and reflects precise concerns on the part of patrons and constitutes a powerful message to the outside world. In general, it is proper to conclude that qurʾānic citations were important signifying components of Islamic art, especially of architecture. They became part of the monument and served as guarantors or witnesses of its function and of the reasons ¶ for its creation. They could be highly personalized, as in the epitaphs filling graveyards, where endlessly repeated statements are attached to individuals or more general proclamations of power, glory or good deeds projected to the whole of humankind and especially to the faithful. What is, however, less clear is the extent to which these messages were actually understood and absorbed. It is, in part, a matter of evaluating the level of literacy which existed over the centuries or at the time of a building’s construction. It is also a matter of seeking in the chronicles and other sources describing cities and buildings actual discussions of the choice of inscriptions made. These descriptions, however, are surprisingly rare. Often it seems as though this powerful visual instrument, from which modern scholars have derived so many interpretations, was hardly noticed in its own time. Much remains to be done, therefore, in studying the response of a culture to its own practice, if one is to accept the position that the use of the qurʾānic word can be equated with the use of images in other religious systems. It is just possible that modern, primarily Western, scholarship misunderstood the meaning of these citations by arbitrarily establishing such an equation. In a fascinating way, the contemporary scene has witnessed rather interesting transformations of this iconographic practice. A recently-erected mosque in Tehran, the al-Ghadir Mosque designed by the architect Jahangir Mazlum and completed in 1987, is covered with large written statements, for the most part in glazed or unglazed bricks. Some of these calligraphic panels are indeed placed like icons or images in a church and contain qurʾānic passages. Others are pious statements or prayers, for example the ninety-nine names of God on the ceiling and the endlessly repeated profession of faith (see ).¶ While the esthetic success of the structure is debatable, the building itself is impressive for its use of writing so well-blended into the fabric of the wall that its legibility is diminished and its value as a written statement difficult to perceive. It is almost as if the difficulty of reading the words contributes to their esthetic and pious values (M. Falamaki, al-Ghadir mosque). Many other contemporary mosques, especially the monumental ones, provide examples of the same difficulties (R. Holod and H. Khan, The mosque). A particularly spectacular use of the Qurʾān has been proposed by the architect Basil al-Bayati for the city of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. He envisioned huge arches in the shape of open books of the Qurʾān along the main highway leading into the city as a sort of processional alley greeting the visitor. The project, however, has not been executed. Yet an open book appears as the façade of a mosque designed by the same architect in Aleppo and the Pakistani sculptor Gulgee created a stunning free-standing miḥrāb in the shape of two leaves from an open Qurʾān for the King Faisal Mosque in Islamabad. The effect is striking, if unsettling for those who are used to traditional forms, but it demonstrates the contemporary extension of an iconography taken from the Qurʾān to one that uses the book itself as a model. Whether successful or not as works of art, these recent developments clearly indicate that the future will witness further experiments in the use of the Qurʾān, as a book or as a source of citations, to enhance architecture, especially that of mosques, and to send religious and ideological messages. Thus, shortly after the end of the Cultural Revolution in the primarily Muslim Chinese province of Sinkiang, a modest plaque at the entrance of a refurbished mosque in the small town of Turfan (Tufu in Chinese) on the edge of the Tarim Basin quoted in ¶ Arabic script, which presumably was inaccessible to the secret police, q 9:17: «It is not for idolaters to inhabit God’s places of worship (masājid), witnessing unbelief against themselves. Their work has failed and in fire they will forever dwell.» Thus, the Qurʾān continues to reflect the passions, needs, and aspirations of Muslims everywhere. The forms of the Qurʾān Thanks to important recent studies in the paleography of early Arabic (F. Déroche, Les manuscrits du Coran; Y. Tabbaa, The transformation; E. Whelan, Writing the word) and to the stunning discovery of some forty thousand parchment pages of early Islamic manuscripts of the Qurʾān in the Yemen, we are beginning to understand the evolution of the Arabic script used in manuscripts of the Qurʾān in spite of the total absence of properly-dated examples before the third/ninth century. The variety of early scripts was already recognized by the bibliographer Ibn al-Nadīm (d. ca. 385/995) and modern collectors have transformed early pages of what is known in the trade as «Kūfic» writing into works of art which frequently fetch high prices on the market. It is much more difficult to decide whether these early manuscripts were indeed meant to have a formal esthetic value independent of their sacred content. Some of them acquired many forms of ornamental detail, which will be examined in the following section of this entry. It is also difficult to evaluate whether they or the many styles of angular writing discovered in the Ṣanʿāʾ trove or elsewhere were meant primarily for the pleasure of the beholder. Matters changed considerably after the introduction of a proportioned script (al-khaṭṭ al-mansūb) by the ʿAbbāsid vizier Ibn Muqla (d. 328/940) in the fourth/tenth century. The establishment of a modular system of writing made it possible to create ¶ canons for scripts and variations of these scripts around well-defined norms. As a result, from the time of the small Qurʾān of Ibn al-Bawwāb (d. 413/1022) in the Chester Beatty Library dated to 391/1001 (D.S. Rice, The unique Ibn al-Bawwāb) until today, thousands of professional scribes and artists have sought to create variations on the conventional scripts which would attract and please the eyes of buyers. These scripts were not restricted to the text of the Qurʾān but, with the major exception of manuscripts of Persian poetry, the holy book was the text on which the most effort was lavished. This is demonstrated by the magnificent Qurʾāns of the Mamlūks (r. 648/1250-922/1517) in Egypt, Syria and Palestine and those of the Īlkhānids (r. 654/1256-754/1353) in Persia (D. James, Qurʾans and After Timur). It is also for the accurate reading of the qurʾānic text that diacritical marks and other identifying signs were carefully integrated into the composition of words and of letters without detracting from the availability of the text. Already with the celebrated «Qarmatian» Qurʾān of the fifth/eleventh or sixth/twelfth centuries, the leaves of which are spread all over the world (B. St. Laurent, The identification), each page became a composed entity to be seen and appreciated in its own right and in which writing and ornament are set in an even balance. A potential conflict between form and content has begun, with the former of greater importance to the ordinary faithful and the latter more important to the collectors of artistic writing or calligraphy. Enhancement of the Qurʾān through art Two aspects of the enhancement of the Qurʾān have already been mentioned: the varieties of styles of writing and the addition of small, ornamental, usually abstract or floral, features in the midst of the text itself or in the margins. At some point, large ¶ headings were introduced between sūras and some of these acquired decorative designs. A group of pages, presumably in the Egyptian National Library in Cairo but not seen since their publication by B. Moritz almost a century ago, uses arcades and other architectural features, perhaps representing or symbolizing places of prayer, as well as geometric and floral designs. Large floral compositions project into the margins and the design of these headings has been compared to the tabulae ansatae of classical antiquity. In Mamlūk, Īlkhānid or later manuscripts, the cartouches with the titles of each sūra are often dramatically separated from the text proper, while in earlier manuscripts they are more closely imbricated with each other. Enhancement could also be provided by variations in size. There are minuscule copies of the Qurʾān and gigantic ones, like the Tīmūrid one which requires a special stand to be used and whose pages cannot be read and turned simultaneously. Accounts of calligraphers, especially in Iran, often boast of such feats of marvelous transformations of the holy book, thereby illustrating the major traditional esthetic value of being «astonishing» (ʿajīb). Qurʾāns were also honored with fancy and expensive bindings. Especially valued copies were even kept in special boxes. When the Almohad ruler ʿAbd al-Muʾmin (r. 524/1130-558/1163) received from the people of Cordoba the copy of the Qurʾān which had allegedly belonged to the caliph ʿUthmān (r. 23/644-35/656) and preserved traces of his blood, he hired jewelers, metalworkers, painters and leather workers to embellish it. In Ottoman times (r. 680/1281-1342/1924) particularly beautiful cabinets were made for keeping pages and manuscripts of the holy book. It is, on the whole, clear and not particularly surprising that many techniques were used to honor manuscripts of the Qurʾān ¶ by making them more attractive and more exciting than other books and by treating them like precious items, if not literally like works of art. What is more difficult to decide is whether certain styles of writing, certain techniques of binding, certain ways of ornamenting pages and certain motifs were, generally and exclusively, restricted to the Qurʾān. The argument may be made for the composition of pages after the fifth/eleventh century and for scripts which, angular or cursive, were written with particular care when used for the holy text. More tentatively, it may be argued that certain types of decorative feature like the marginal ornaments — which also served to signal divisions within the text — were exclusively restricted to the Qurʾān. All these hypotheses, however, still await investigation and discussion. The difficulty they present is well illustrated by two hitherto unique pages from the trove in Yemen which were published by H.C. von Bothmer (Architekturbilder) and discussed by O. Grabar(The mediation). They illustrate large architectural ensembles, which have been interpreted as mosques shown in a curious but not unique mix of plans and elevations. Are they really images of mosques? If so, are they representations of specific buildings or evocations of generic types? Could they be illustrations of passages in the Qurʾān describing buildings in paradise? There are as yet no firm answers to these questions, but it may be suggested that there was a complex vocabulary of forms more or less restricted to the enhancement of the Qurʾān. These forms did indeed create an art. See also material culture and the qurʾān.

---

• M. Aga-Oglu, Remarks on the character of Islamic art, in The art bulletin 36 (1954), 175—202
• W. Begley, The myth of the Taj Mahal, in The art bulletin 61 (1979), 7-37
• W. Begley and Z.A. Desai, Taj Mahal, Seattle 1989
• M. van Berchem, Matériaux pour un corpus inscriptionem arabicarum, Jérusalem, Cairo 1922-7
• M. Bernhard, Arabic palaeography, Cairo 1904
• repr. Cairo 1974
• S. Blair, The monumental inscriptions from early Islamic Iran and Transoxiana, Leiden 1992
• H.C. von Bothmer, Architekturbilder im Koran. Eine Prachthandschrift der Umayyadenzeit aus dem Yemen, in Pantheon 45 (1987), 4-20
• C. Brisch, Observations on the iconography of the mosaics in the Great Mosque at Damascus, in P. Soucek (ed.), Content and context of visual arts in the Islamic world, University Park, PA 1988
• Dār al-Āthār al-Islāmiyya, Maṣāḥif Ṣanʿāʾ, Kuwait 1985
• F. Déroche, The Abbasid tradition. The Nasser D. Khalili collection of Islamic art, Oxford 1992, i
• id., Les écritures coraniques anciennes, in rei 48 (1980), 207-24
• id., Les manuscrits du Coran. Catalogue des manuscrits arabes de la Bibliothèque Nationale, 2 vols., Paris 1983-5
• E. Dodd, The image of the word, in Berytus 18 (1969), 35-62
• E. Dodd and S. Khairallah, The image of the word, Beirut 1981
• R. Ettinghausen, The character of Islamic art, in Nabih A. Faris (ed.), The Arab heritage, Princeton 1948, 251-67
• id., Arabic epigraphy, in D. Kouymijian (ed.), Near Eastern numismatics, iconography, epigraphy and history in honor of George C. Miles, Beirut 1974, 297—317
• M. Falamaki, al-Ghadir mosque, Tehran, in Mimar 29 (1988), 24-9
• B. Farès, Essai sur l’esprit de la décoration islamique, Cairo 1952
• B. Finster, Die Mosaiken der Umayyadenmoschee von Damaskus, in Kunst des Orients 7 (1970-1), 83-141
• V. Gonzalez, Piège de crystal en palais de Solomon, Paris forthcoming
• O. Grabar, The formation of Islamic art, New Haven 19832
• id., The mihrab in the mosque of Cordova, in A. Papadopoulo (ed.), Le mihrāb dans l’architecture et la religion musulmanes. Actes du colloque international tenu a Paris en Mai 1980, Leiden 1988
• id., The great mosque of Isfahan, New York 1990
• id., The mediation of ornament, Princeton 1993
• id., The shape of the holy, Princeton 1996
• H.W. Hazard, The numismatic history of North Africa, New York 1952
• E. Herzfeld, Matériaux pour un corpus inscriptionem arabicarum, Alep, Cairo 1954-6
• R. Holod and H. Khan, The mosque and the modern world, London 1997
• M.A. Husain, Quranic epigraphy in Delhi province, Calcutta 1936
• D. James, Qurʾāns of the Mamluks, London 1988
• id., After Timur. Qurʾāns of the 15th and 16th centuries, New York 1992
• N. Khoury, The mihrab. From text to form, in ijmes 30 (1998), 1-27 with a good bibliography
• A. Maricq and G. Wiet, Le minaret de Djam, Paris 1959
• G.C. Miles, Early Arabic glass weights and stamps, New York 1946
• J. Moline, The minaret of Ṭam, in Kunst des Orients 9 (1973-4), 131-48
• I.A. Muhammad, Muslims and taṣwīr, in mw 45 (1955), 250-68
• M.R. Qlaaji, Decoration and the position of Islam, in Majallat al-buḥūth al-fiqhiyya al-muʿāṣira (Contemporary jurisprudence research journal) 8 (1991)
• D. van Reenen, The Bilderverbot, a new survey, in Der Islam 67 (1990), 27-77 (the latest survey of the subject)
• D.S. Rice, The unique Ibn al-Bawwāb manuscript in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin 1955
• M. Rosen-Ayalon, The first mosaic discovered in Ramleh, in Israel exploration journal 26 (1976)
• M. Sharon, Corpus inscriptionum arabicarum palaestinae, Leiden 1997f.
• id., Deux minarets d'époque seljoukide, in Syria 30 (1953), 108-36
• J. Sourdel-Thomine, Lashkari Bazar ib. Le décor non-figuratif et les inscriptions, vol. 18 of the Mémoires de la délégation archéolo-gique française en Afghanistan, Paris 1978
• B.St. Laurent, The identification of a magnificent Koran manuscript, in F. Déroche (ed.), Les manuscrits du Moyen-Orient, Istanbul 1989, the whole volume contains many pertinent contributions
• Y. Tabbaa, The transformation of Arabic writing. Qurʾānic calligraphy, in Ars orientalis 21 (1991)
• id., Constructions of power and piety in medieval Aleppo, University Park, PA 1997, ii
• E. Whelan, Writing the word of God, in Ars orientalis 20 (1990), 113-47 with 22 pls.
• G. Wiet and H. al-Hawary, Matériaux pour un cia. IV Arabie, ed. N. Elisséeff, Cairo 1985 (rev. ed.)
• C. Williams, The cult of Alid saints, in Muqarnas 3 (1985), 39-60

Grabar, Oleg, «Art and Architecture and the Qurʾān», in: Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, General Editor: Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Georgetown University, Washington DC. Consulted online on 07 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-3922_q3_EQCOM_00018>

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition / Architecture

---

I. early muslim architecture

(1) The Time of the Prophet

Arabia, at the rise of Islam, does not appear to have possessed anything worthy of the name of architecture. Only a small proportion of the population was settled, and these lived in dwellings which were scarcely more than hovels. Those who lived in mud-brick houses were called ahl al-madar, and the Bedawīn, from their tents of camel’s-hair cloth, ahl al-wabar.

The sanctuary at Mecca, in the time of Muḥammad, merely consisted of a small roofless enclosure, oblong in shape, formed by four walls a little higher than a man, built of rough stones laid dry. Within this enclosure was the sacred well of Zamzam. This little sanctuary, known as the Kaʿba, lay at the bottom of a valley surrounded by the houses of Mecca, which came close up to it, and we are expressly told that when ʿUmar wanted to surround it by an open space, large enough to contain the Faithful, he ¶ had to demolish many houses (al-Balād̲h̲urī, Futūḥ , 46).

The Kaʿba, being in a bad state, was demolished and reconstructed by the Ḳurays̲h̲, when Muḥammad was in his thirty-fifth year, i.e. in A.D. 608. The Ḳurays̲h̲ took the wood of a ship which had been wrecked, and employed a carpenter and builder named Bāḳūm, who had been on the ship, to help them in the rebuilding. Azraḳī (Wüstenfeld’s ed., Chroniken der Stadt Mekka , i, 110, last line—112, l. 12) says that the new Kaʿba was built with a course of stone alternating with a course of wood up to the roof, there being sixteen courses of stone and fifteen of wood. The door, which had previously being at ground level, was now placed with its sill four cubits and a span from the ground. The roof rested on six pillars ( sawārī , pl. of sāriya ) arranged in two rows of three each. Total height of structure-18 cubits. Azraḳī says that on the ceiling, walls and columns were pictures ( ṣuwar ) of the Prophets, trees and angels. (Cf. Creswell, in Archaeologia , 94, Oxford 1951, 97-102).

This curious style of architecture, of alternate courses of stone and wood, resembles the style practised in Abyssinia in early times (see Krencker, in the Deutsche Aksum-Expedition , ii, 168-94) and Bāḳūm is probably an abbreviation of ‘Enbāḳōm, the Abyssinian form of Habakkuk, that is to say the "carpenter and builder" employed was most probably an Abyssinian (see my Kaʿba in A.D. 608, in Archaeologia, XCIV (1951), 97-102).

When Muḥammad migrated to Madīna he built a house for himself and his family. It consisted of an enclosure about 100 cubits square of mud brick, with a portico on the south side made of palm trunks used as columns to support a roof of palm leaves and mud. Against the outer side of the east wall were built small huts ( ḥud̲j̲ra ) for the Prophet’s wives. All opened into the courtyard. We have the description (preserved in Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaḳāt , I2, 180) of these huts, due to a man named ʿAbd Allāh b. Yazīd who saw then just before they were demolished by order of al-Walīd: “There were four houses of mud brick, with apartments partitioned off by palm branches, and five houses made of palm branches plastered with mud and not divided into rooms. Over the doors were curtains of black hair-cloth. Each curtain measured 3×3 cubits. One could reach the roof with the hand”.

Such was the house of the leader of the community at Madīna. Nor did Muḥammad wish to alter these conditions; he was entirely without architectural ambitions, and Ibn Saʿd records the following saying of his: “The most unprofitable thing that eateth up the wealth of a Believer is building" (Ṭabaḳāt, I2, 181, ll. 7-8; also VIII, 120, l. 1). At this time Ṭāʿif was the only town in the Ḥid̲j̲āz that possessed a wall. When Madīna was attacked in 5/627 it had no wall, so Muḥammad had a ditch dug to defend it; the idea is said to have been due to a Persian slave named Salmān, and it created a great sensation for nobody had ever heard of such a thing before. The word k̲h̲andaḳ given to it is Persian. Madīna was first surrounded by a wall in 63/682-3; (Masʿūdī, Tanbīh , 305, l. 4).

(2) The Patriarchal and Umayyad Caliphates

The men who formed the Arab armies of conquest were mainly Bedouin, but even those who came from permanent settlements, such as Mecca and Madīna, knew nothing of art or architecture. They soon found themselves in two totally different ¶ cultural environments, one of which had been under Hellenistic influence for a thousand years, the other under Persian influence for even longer.

And not only were the cultural conditions different, the material conditions were different also. Syria was a country of splendid building materials. Syrian limestone was the best of its kind, resisting weathering and taking a beautiful amber lint on exposure, and cedar wood was plentiful, for the Lebanon had not yet been deforested. So the seventh century invaders found themselves in a country of splendid buildings—churches of cut stone, some of ashlar in courses 90 cm. high, with arcades on marble columns, gable roofs of cedar wood and large surfaces decorated with coloured glass mosaics on a glistening gold background.

In the other cultural sphere they met with buildings of brick, sometimes only of mud brick, sometimes vaulted and sometimes with flat roofs of palm trunks, palm leaves and mud.

In these early days, the Muslims, when they conquered a town in Syria, usually took one of the churches and used it as a mosque, or merely divided one of the churches if the town had surrendered without resistance. At Ḥimṣ, for example, they took a fourth part of the Church of St. John. How was a church converted into a mosque? One can easily guess. In Syria the ḳibla (direction of Mecca) is due south, whereas churches are turned towards the east. Under these circumstances it was only necessary to close the western entrance (or three entrances), pierce new entrances in the north wall and pray across the aisles. That this is exactly what happened can be verified in the Great Mosque of Ḥamā where the west front of the Kanīsat al-ʿUẓmā (Great Church) which was converted into a mosque in 15/636-7, now forms the west end of the sanctuary. Its three western doors have been converted into windows and it is now entered from the north.

At Jerusalem they made use of the remains of the basilical hall of Herod, ruined by the army of Titus, which ran along the south side of the Temple Enclosure. This primitive mosque was seen by Arculf about A.D. 670 (Geyer, Itinera Hierosolymitana , i, 145). In Persia, at Persepolis and Ḳazwīn, they appear to have taken apadānas , or hypostile audience-halls of the Persian kings, with flat roofs resting on columns with double bull-headed capitals.

But the situation was different in ʿIrāḳ, for here the Arabs founded new towns (which they did not do in Syria) so pre-existing buildings could not be employed, and they had to construct some sort of place for themselves. What manner of buildings were the first mosques of the earliest towns in Islam?

The following is a list of those Umayyad Friday mosques the essential features of which are known from literary or archaeological evidence:

1.— Baṣra, reconstructed in 45/665.

2.— Kūfa, reconstructed in 50/670.

3.— Damascus, construction begun in 87/706.

4.— Medina, reconstructed 88/706-91/710.

5.— al-Masd̲j̲id al-Aḳṣā, Jerusalem, built under Walīd I, 86/705-96/715.

6.— Aleppo, built under Walīd I or Sulaymān, 86/705-99/717.

7.— Fusṭāṭ, reconstructed 92/710-93/712.

8.— Ramla, completed 98/717-102/720.

9.— Buṣrā, built in 102/720-1.

10.— Ḳaṣr al-Ḥayr al-S̲h̲arḳī (identified by Sauvaget as Ruṣāfa, the residence of His̲h̲ām) built in 110/728. ¶

11.— Ḥarrān, built in 126/744-133/750.

12.— Ḥamāt, reconstructed, date uncertain.

13.— Darʿa, date uncertain (?).

At Baṣra, founded about 14/635, the first mosque (according to al-Balād̲h̲urī, Futūḥ , 341, 342 and 346-7) was simply marked out ( ik̲h̲taṭṭa ) and the people prayed there without any building. According to another version, also given by al-Balād̲h̲urī (346 and 350), it was enclosed by a fence of reeds. At Kūfa, founded in 17/638, the first mosque was equally primitive. Its boundaries were fixed by a man who threw an arrow towards the ḳibla , then another towards the north, another to the west and a fourth to the east (al-Balād̲h̲urī, 275-6; al-Ṭabarī, i, 2481, ll. 12-13). A square with each side two arrow-casts in length was thus obtained. This area was not enclosed by walls but by a ditch only, and the sole architectural feature was a covered colonnade ( ẓulla ), 200 cubits long, which ran the whole length of the south side.

The columns were of marble, taken from some buildings of the Lak̲h̲mid Princes at Ḥīra, about 4 miles away. This ẓulla was open on all sides so that, in the words of al-Ṭabarī (i, 2494), a man praying in it could see the convent known as Dayr Hind and the gate of the town known as Bāb Ḏj̲iṣr. On the ḳibla side and only separated from the praying place by a narrow street was built a dwelling for Saʿd the Commander-in-Chief.

The first mosque in Egypt, the Mosque of ʿAmr, built at Fusṭāṭ in the winter of 64˝, was equally primitive. It measured 50×30 cubits and had two doors on each side except on the ḳibla side. (Maḳrīzī, Ḵh̲iṭaṭ , ii, 247). The roof was very low and probably consisted of palm trunks resting of palm-trunk columns as in Muḥammad’s house at Madīna.

The first mosques to be worthy of the name of architecture were the second Great Mosques at Baṣra (45/665) and Kūfa (50/670). Regarding the latter al-Ṭabarī (i, 2492) says that Ziyād b. Abīhī summoned "Masons of the Days of Ignorance" (i.e. non-Muslims). Then a man who had been one of the builders of Ḵh̲usraw. came forward and described how columns of stone from Ḏj̲abal Aḥwāz should be used to carry a roof 30 cubits high. Ibn Ḏj̲ubayr, who saw this mosque, says (de Goeje’s ed., 211) that "the ḳibla side has five aisles whereas the rest have two only; the aisles are supported on on columns like masts, ... extremely high and not surmounted by arches" (Fig. 1). It is obvious that the roofing system resembled that of an apadāna , or Hall of Columns of the Achaemenian kings, exactly as was the case in the first Great Mosque at Bag̲h̲dād.

The Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem, the oldest existing monument of Muslim architecture, was built by the Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik and completed in 72/691. It is an annular building and consists in its simplest analysis of wooden dome 20.44 m. in diameter, set on a high drum, pierced with sixteen windows and resting on four piers and twelve columns, placed in a circle and so arranged that three columns alternate with each pier. This circle of supports is placed in the centre of a large octagon averaging 20.60 m. a side, formed by eight walls 9˝ m. high (excluding the parapet which adds 2.60 m.) each pierced in their upper half by five windows (Plate III a and Fig. 2).

There is a door 2.60 m. wide and 4.30 high in each of the four sides which face the four cardinal points, and on these sides the central window above the door is consequently much reduced. The space ¶ between the circle and the octagon being too great to be conveniently spanned by single beams, an intermediate octagon, consisting of arches borne by eight piers and sixteen columns, so arranged that two columns alternate with each pier, has been placed between the two to provide the necessary support for the roof (Plate IV a). The two concentric ambulatories thus formed were of course used for the ṭawwāf or ceremonial circumambulation of the sacred object, the Rock.

The exterior was always panelled with marble for half its height, as it is to-day, but the upper part was originally covered with glass mosaic ( fusayfisā ) like the inner arcades. This was replaced by the present coating of fayence by Sultan Sulaymān in 959/1552. The vaults of the four entrance porches were also decorated with mosaic, but it has only been preserved in the eastern porch. The lintels of the four doorways are decorated on their under side with sheet metal, either copper or bronze, worked en repoussé and exhibiting a variety of designs, chiefly vine leaves, bunches of grapes and acanthus. The raised parts of the design are gilt, the background of the central part is painted black and the outer border bright green. The inner side of the outer wall is panelled with marble from top to bottom, likewise all the piers. The tie beams of the arches of the octagonal arcade are decorated beneath with a bronze sheathing like the door soffits (Plate III b-c), but their inner faces are treated like a Corinthian entablature. The arcades above are covered with glass mosaic on both faces and their soffits also (Plate IVb, V and VI). The arcades of the central circle are also decorated with glass mosaic on their outer faces, but their soffits and inner faces have been given a coating of marble at some unknown date, but before A.D. 1340. The drum above is also decorated with mosaic. The ceiling of the outer ambulatory is probably the work of Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad in 718/1318 like the present lining of the dome. The ceilling of the inner ambulatory dates from the end of the 18th century. The original dome, until it fell in 407/1016-7, was covered with sheets of lead, over which were placed 10,210 plates of brass gilt (Ibn ʿAbd Rabbiḥī, al-ʿIḳd , iii, 367). The harmony of its proportions and the richness of its decoration make the Dome of the Rock one of the most beautiful buildings in the world.

The Great Mosque of Damascus. Al-Walīd began the construction of the Great Mosque of Damascus immediately after his accession in 86/705. A curious situation had prevailed here since the conquest. A great sanctuary of a Syrian god existed here, consisting of a temenos , or sacred enclosure, measuring 100 m. from N. to S. and 150 m. from E. to W., set in an outer enclosure over 300 m. square.

At each corner of the inner enclosure, which had pilastered walls nearly 13 m. high resting on a socle of at least 4 m., was a square tower, and all round the interior ran a double colonnade. There were four axial entrances and in the centre, or a little to the west of it, was the temple, its entrance facing east. In the 4th century Christianity became the state religion and Theodosius (A.D: 379-95) converted the temple into a church (Malalas, Chronographia , 344-5). After the Arab conquest the temenos was divided between Muslims and Christians. Ibn S̲h̲ākir says that they both "entered by the same doorway, placed on the south side where is now the great miḥrāb . Then the Christians turned to the west towards their church (i.e. the converted temple), and the Muslims to the right to reach their mosque". ¶ Where? Opposite the traditional " miḥrāb of the Companions of the Prophet", i.e. under that part of the interior colonnade which was to the east of the entrance. As for the corner towers, Ibn al-Faḳīh (p. 108) says: "The minarets ( miʾd̲h̲ana ) which are in the Damascus Mosque were originally watch-towers in the Greek days ... when al-Walīd turned the whole area into a mosque, he left these in their old condition". Al-Masʿūdī ( Murūd̲j̲ , iv, 90-91) says: "Then came Christianity and it became a Church; then came Islam and it became a mosque. al-Walīd built it solidly and the sawāmiʿ (the four corner towers) were not changed, they serve for the call to prayer at the present day".

This state of affairs lasted until al-Walīd, after bargaining with the Christians, demolished everything except the outer walls and the corner towers and built the present mosque. He first of all reduced the interior of the enclosure into a rectangle by building the long rooms to east and west, leaving a vestibule in front of the east and west entrances. He ¶ then built the sanctuary with three aisles running parallel to the south wall and cut through its centre by a transept about 8 m. higher. The arcades are in two tiers, the lower of large arches being 10.35 m. high, the upper, in which two small arches correspond to each one below, is nearly 5 m. high. Similar arcades form porticoes on the three sides of the court. The aisles of the sanctuary have gable roofs covered with sheets of lead, and so has the transept, but the porticoes on the three sides of the court have roofs which slope slightly inwards (Plate VII a-b). Over the transept was a wooden dome, very high and conspicuous.

The decoration consisted of marble panelling (some parts of the original panelling exist next the east entrance) above which ran a golden karma or vine-scroll frieze, and above, that was glass mosaic ( fusayfisā ) right up to the ceiling. A considerable amount has survived the three fires of 1069, 1401, and 1893, and may still be seen under the west portico, where the famous panorama of the Baradā ¶ (the river of Damascus) is over 34 m. in length and nearly 7 m. high (Plate VIII a). When intact the surface of the fusayfisā must have been greater than in any other building in existence! There were also six marble window-grilles (Plate VIIIb) which constitute the earliest geometrical designs in Islam. The Great Mosque of Damascus was rightly regarded by mediaeval Muslims as one of the Seven Wonders of the World.

Another building due to al-Walīd is the audience hall and ḥammām , known to-day as Ḳuṣayr ʿAmra, ¶ in Transjordan. It consists of an audience hall about 10 m. square, with two slightly pointed transverse arches supporting three tunnel-vaults (Plate IX and Fig. 3). There is a vaulted recess on the side opposite the entrance, with a small vaulted room on either side of it. A door on the east side gives access to the ḥammām, which consists of three small rooms covered by a tunnel vault, a cross vault and a dome. The latter was the calidarium , and under the floor are hypocausts exactly as in a Roman bath. But most remarkable of all are the paintings which cover the walls (Plate X), mostly scenes from daily life, a hunting scene and figures symbolising History, Poetry and Philosophy with the words in Greek above their heads. The dome of the calidarium was painted to represent the vault of heaven, with the Great Bear, the Little Bear, the signs of the Zodiac, etc. But most important of all was the painting of the enemies of Islam defeated by the Umayyads, with their names written above them in Greek and Arabic: Ḳayṣar (the Byzantine Emperor), Rōdorīk (the Visigothic King of Spain), Chosroes, Negus (the King of Abyssinia), and two more the names of which have been obliterated. Painting, contrary to the popular idea, is not forbidden by any passage in the Ḳurʾān, and hostility to it only took proper theological form towards the end of the 8th century A.D. (see my Lawfulness of Painting in Early Islam , in Ars Islamica , XI-XII, 159-66).

The Umayyad Caliphs were great builders of palaces. Their external fortified appearance, although built in the heart, of their Empire, hundreds of miles from the nearest frontier, is to be explained by the route taken by the armies of the conquest. They passed a long series of Roman frontier forts, the castra of the Roman limes , which ran from the Gulf of ʿAḳaba to Damascus and thence to Palmyra. The most important of these (for which see Brünnow and von Domaszewski, Die Provincia Arabia ) are:

Some of these frontier forts were lived in by Umayyad princes. For example, Walīd II sometimes lived at Azraḳ, which was rebuilt in 634/1236-7, but which in his day (A.D. 744) was a Roman fort of Diocletian and Maximian. When he was attacked by conspirators he fled north to the Ḳaṣr al-Bak̲h̲rāʾ, which is the Arabic name of a Roman fort about 15 miles S.-W. of Palmyra.

Now the result of this was twofold. It not only gave the Umayyad Caliphs the necessary knowledge when they wanted to built fortresses on the Byzantine frontier, e.g. Massīsa in 83-4/702-3, al-Mut̲h̲aḳḳab, Kaṭarg̲h̲ās̲h̲, Mūra, Būḳā and Bag̲h̲ras, all in 105/724 (see al-Balād̲h̲urī, 165-7), but it affected the design of their palaces. Here is a list of them:

1.— al-Walīd’s palace at Minyā on Lake Tiberias, A.D. 705/15.

2.— al-Walīd’s ḳaṣr at Ḏj̲abal Seis, A.D. 705/15.

3.— His̲h̲ām’s palace of Ḳaṣr al-Ḥayr al-G̲h̲arbī. c. 727.

4.— His̲h̲ām’s palace of Ḳaṣr al-Ḥayr al-S̲h̲arḳī, 110/729.

5.— His̲h̲ām’s palace at Ḵh̲irbat al-Mafd̲j̲ar, 4 miles N. of Jericho.

6.— Walīd II’s palace of Ms̲h̲attā, c. A.D. 744.

7.— Walīd II’s palace of Ḳaṣr al-Ṭūba, c. A.D. 744.

All these palaces, although built in the midst of Muslim territory, look externally like forts, for they are stone enclosures with round flanking towers. Nos. 1-5 are approximately 70 m. square externally, No. 7 is twice as large, 70×140 m. and No. 6 is four times as large, i.e. 145 m. square. Why this fortified appearance when it was not necessary? It would seem that having been in the habit of occupying forts belonging to the Roman limes , they came to look upon a rectangular enclosure flanked by towers as a necessary feature of a princely residence.

When His̲h̲ām about 727 A.D. built his palace, known to-day as Ḳaṣr al-Ḥayr al-G̲h̲arbī. he chose a site on a small mound about 40 miles to the west of Palmyra, where there was a monastery built by the G̲h̲assānid Arethas (= al-Ḥārit̲h̲) under Justinian in A.D. 559. He incorporated the tower of this monastery, which had a door protected by a mâchicoulis (of one opening only) high above it, so that it formed a tall watch-tower at the north-west corner of his 70 m. square ḳaṣr. This is how the mâchicoulis first passed into Muslim architecture.

Ḳaṣr al-Ḥayr al-G̲h̲arbī has been admirably excavated by M. Daniel Schlumberger, (see Syria , XX, 195-238 and 324-73). The entrance was found to consist of two great stone door-posts and a lintel decorated with vine ornament, which must have been taken from Palmyra. He has also brought to light masses of stucco ornament, wall panelling, window grilles and frames, and human figures, part of which has been skilfully assembled and put together in the Museum at Damascus. Two large fresco paintings were also discovered, one representing the Caliph on horseback hunting with bow and arrow and using stirrups, which is almost the oldest known record of their use.

Two years later His̲h̲ām built another palace, known to-day as Ḳaṣr al-Ḥayr al-S̲h̲arḳī, together with a small walled city provided with a mosque of ¶ three aisles, cut through the centre by a transept of greater height, exactly as at Damascus (Plate XII a and Fig. 4).

As for the Palace Enclosure it averages nearly 67 m. a side internally and 71 m. externally with walls of stone flanked by 12 round towers, of which the total height must have been at least 14 m. There is only one entrance in the centre of the west side; it is defended by a mâchicoulis as are the four gates of the Madīna alongside. The walls are decorated with a string-course of brickwork at the level of the rampart walk and each tower was crowned by a room with a brick dome. The tops of the pair which flank the entrance are decorated with arched panels of stucco, acanthus leaves and also apparently vine leaves and grapes (Plate XI). The interior consisted of an open court, which must have measured about 37×45 m., surrounded by two tiers of rooms, the lower tunnel vaulted, the upper with flat wooden ceilings. It awaits excavation.

Another palace of His̲h̲ām at Ḵh̲irbat al-Mafd̲j̲ar, 4 miles north of Jericho, has also been excavated in recent years. It consists of a palace enclosure about 70 m. square with its own mosque, a large forecourt, a tank with a little open octagonal pavilion in the centre, another mosque with aisles (two) on the ḳibla side only, and to north a very large ḥammām , consisting of nine domed bays arranged three by three, with a small annexe on the north side containing the most beautiful floor mosaic ever discovered in Palestine. It consists of a fine tree executed in three shades of green, with two gazelles grazing on the left and a lion pouncing on another on the right. In Muslim palaces the staircases are generally narrow and inconspicuously tucked away, but here there are fine broad staircases which led to the upper floor. Here again masses of stucco ornament have been recovered and put together in the Palestine Museum at Jerusalem. It consists of panels decorated with geometrical ornament, window grilles, human heads and dancing girls (see the Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities , V, VI, VIII and X-XII).

These three palaces each had an enclosure which is Ḳaṣr al-Ḥayr al-S̲h̲arḳī is about 1˝ km. wide and 7 km. long, with walls of stone to the height of a metre and a half and above that at least 2 m. more of mud brick. There are half-round buttresses at intervals, first on one side of the wall and then on the other alternately. Traces of a similar wall exist at Mafd̲j̲ar. Such an enclosure was called a ḥayr , and here is the proof. Yaʿḳūbī ( Buldān , p. 263) describing the foundation of Sāmarrā by the Caliph al-Muʿtaṣim in A.D. 836 says: "And wherever these streets of al-Ḥayr touched land granted to other people, he would order the wall [of al-Ḥayr] to be built farther back. Behind the wall were wild animals, gazelles, wild asses, deer, hares and ostriches, kept in by an enclosing wall in a fine broad open tract". And Miskawayhī (Margoliouth’s text, i, 159) under the year 315/925-6, says: "This year there was a rising of the disbanded cavalry, who went out to the Oratory, plundered the palace called al-T̲h̲urayyā (the palace of the Pleiades at Baghdād), and slaughtered the game in the Ḥayr ".

Ms̲h̲attā, about 4 miles from Zīza and about 20 miles south of ʿAmmān, is the largest of all the Umayyad palaces, measuring about 145 m. each way, but it was never finished. The outer walls with their half round towers are of well dressed limestone, but all the walls of the interior are of red bricks resting of three or four courses of cut stone. The bricks are of two sizes, 21 cm. square and 28 cm. sq., and 6˝, cm. thick.

The entrance is in the centre of the south side. Internally it is divided into three tracts running from north to south, the central one being 57 m. in width and the lateral ones about 42 m. The buildings intended to occupy the lateral tracts have never been begun, and even those projected for the central tract have never been finished. Of the latter, however, the group at the north end must have been very nearly finished, and the plan of the group at the south end can be clearly seen, for a great stone ¶ grid is visible formed by the stone foundation course (Fig. 5).

The part immediately behind the gateway was obviously intended to be an entrance hall 17.40 m. long, leading into a court 27.14 m. broad and 23 m. deep; these two elements were flanked by other rooms and courts. This group may be called the Gateway Block. Beyond the court just mentioned is an enormous central court, just over 57 m. sq. on the north side of which is a triple-arched entrance (the ¶ arches have fallen) leading into a great basilical hall, 21.60 m. deep, ending in a triple apse (Plate XII b-c and Fig. 6). This basilical hall, which presumably was the Throne Room, is flanked by two symmetrical complexes composed as follows: on either side of an oblong court, placed perpendicular to the basilical hall, is another court at right angles to it, flanked on each side by a pair of vaulted chambers. These rooms were intended to have a marble panelling, for great block of a fine green stone (looking like marble, but really a calc-schist), some already sawn into slabs 3 cm. thick, were once to be seen lying in the east side tract.

But Ms̲h̲attā really owes its fame to the marvellous carving on its south façade, or rather on the two half-octagonal towers that flank the entrance and the first length of curtain wall to right (13.20 m.) and left (13.50 m.). It consists of a plain socle 47 cm. high, a richly decorated base 1.25 m. in height, a decorated wall-face 2.95 m. in height and an entablature, 90.4 cm. The base consists of a torus moulding with a hollow moulding above and below. The torus moulding is decorated with a network of interlacing vine tendrils which form loops, each occupied by ¶ a vine leaf and a bunch of grapes. The wall-surface is divided into twenty upright and twenty inverted triangles by a cornice-like moulding, which runs up and down zig-zag fashion from the socle to the entablature. The triangles are about 2.85 m. in height and 2.50 in width at the base. Exactly in the centre of each is a rosette, those in the upright triangles being lobed hexagons, those in the inverted triangles straight-sided octagons. The kernels of all the rosettes vary. The surface of the upright triangles is decorated with extraordinary richness in high relief, vine tendrils, bunches of grapes, birds which pluck at the fruit, etc. In the lower part of some of the triangles is a chalice, out of which two animals drink (Plate XIII). On the right hand side of the façade there are neither animals nor birds and the ornament is on a much smaller scale, in fact the differences are sufficient to justify the suggestion that it was executed by a different school of craftsmen.

Summary : The monuments of Umayyad architecture are really splendid structures of cut stone with arcades resting on marble columns and richly decorated internally with marble paneling and ¶ mosaic ( fusayfisā ). The mosques are nearly always covered with a gable roof ( d̲j̲amalūn ). The minarets were tall square towers, derived from the church towers of pre-Muslim Syria, and the triple-aisled sanctuaries were due to the same influence. Umayyad monuments exhibit a mixture of influences, Syria occupying the first place and Persia the second, and Egyptian influence is definitely demonstrable at the end of this period in Ms̲h̲attā. Umayyad architecture employed the following devices: the semi-circular, the horse-shoe and the pointed arch, flat arches or lintels with a semi-circular relieving arch above, joggled voussoirs, tunnel-vaults in stone and brick, wooden domes and stone domes on true spherical-triangle pendentives. The squinch does not appear to have been employed. But we know from descriptions of early authors that a type of mosque prevailed in ʿIrāḳ and Persia quite different from the Syrian type. It was square in plan, had walls of brick (sometimes of mud brick) and its flat timber roof rested directly on the columns without the intermediary of arches. Here we have a direct link between the ancient Persian audience-hall ( apadāna ) and the flat-roofed portico ( tālār ) of more recent Persian palaces.

(3) The ʿAbbāsid Caliphate

The effect of the foundation of Bag̲h̲dād was as far reaching as the transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople. The whole centre of gravity of the Empire was changed; hitherto its capital had been in territory which since the time of Alexander had been in the sphere of Hellenistic culture. The transfer resulted in the weakening of this influence and its replacement by the cultural influences of Sāsānian Persia, to which sphere ʿIrāḳ belonged. This made itself felt in the design of the new city, for which we possess such detailed accounts in al-Yaʿḳūbī and al-Ḵh̲aṭīb that its form can be reconstructed, although no trace of the Bag̲h̲dād of al-Manṣūr has survived. The foundation took place in A.D. 762 and everything was finished in 766.

It was a circular city with an outer and inner wall, and a faṣīl or intervallum , about 35.40 m. wide between. The outer wall was about 14 m. high and ¶ 4 m. thick, the inner about 17 m. high including the crenellations and about 5 m. thick; the towers, of which there were 28 between each gate, rose about 2˝ m. higher. There were four equidistant gateways. al-Ḵh̲aṭīb says that "each was composed of two gateways, one in front of the other, separated by a dihlīz and a raḥaba opening on the faṣīl between the two walls. When one entered by the Ḵh̲urāsān Gate one first turned to the left in an oblong passage ( dihlīz āzāj ) with a vault of brick, 20 cubits wide and 30 long, the entrance of which was in the width and the exit in the length and passed out into a raḥaba ... 40 cubits wide leading to the second gateway. At the far end of this court was the second gateway which was that of the city ... The four gates were constructed on the same model". It is clear from the words of al-Ḵh̲aṭīb—"when one entered by the Ḵh̲urāsān Gate, one first turned to the left, etc." that the outer gateway was a bent entrance. Al-Ḵh̲aṭīb continues: "The second or inner gate, which was that the city ... gave access to an oblong corridor, vaulted with bricks and gypsum ( d̲j̲iṣṣ ) 20 cubits long and 12 wide. Above the vault was an audience hall ... covered by a gigantic dome 50 cubits high" (Fig. 7).

The Muslim historians insist that the cirqular form of the city was a feature that had never been known before, but such is far from being the case, for many earlier examples are known, e.g. the Hittite city of Sinjerli, Abra, Agbatana, Parthian Ctesiphon and Tak̲h̲t-i Sulaymān, Dārābd̲j̲ird in Fārs and also Fīrūzābād.

A mosque was built in the centre of the new city. According to al-Ḵh̲aṭīb it was 200 cubits (roughly 100 m.) square and had a roof supported by wooden columns. There were 17 ailes from right to left, and the side aisles were two deep, the sanctuary was probably five deep as at Kūfa and Wāsiṭ. It was rebuilt by Hārūn al-Ras̲h̲īd with burnt bricks and teak-wood, in 193/808-9.

The palace of al-Manṣūr measured 400 cubits each way. It was on the ḳibla side of the mosque and in contact ( mulāṣiḳ ) with it, as was the practice in early Islam, e.g. at Damascus about 30 A.H., at Baṣra in 45 A.H., at Ḳayrawān in 50 A.H., at Wāsiṭ in 83 or 84 A.H., at Merv in 132-8 A.H., and (if we count the Dār al-Imāra as a palace) in the mosque of Ibn Ṭūlūn at Cairo, in 265 A.H.

Palace and Mosque have long since disappeared but fortunately a fairly well preserved ʿAbbāsid palace of this period has survived, viz: Uk̲h̲ayḍir. on the Wāḍī ʿUbayd about 30 miles west of Karbalāʾ.

It consists of a fortified rectangular enclosure measuring 175×169 m. with a gateway in the centre of each side. There are four round corner towers and ten intermediate half-round towers, not counting the peculiar gateway towers, on each side (Plate XIV a-b). Within the great enclosure and in contact with its northern face, is the Palace proper, measuring 111 m. from north to south and 82 from east to west. It also is provided with half round towers. Its main entrance forms one with the northern entrance of the main enclosure. The masonry is composed of roughly shaped slabs of limestone set in gypsum mortar. The walls with the parapet must have been about 19 m. high. The palace proper consists of a great court of honour, with a līwān for the Hall of Public Audience and a square room behind it, presumably a hall of private audience. On either side are other vaulted rooms. A great vaulted corridor about 3⅓ m. wide runs completely round this group of rooms and the court of honour, and on the east and west sides of it are four isolated and self-contained sets of vaulted chambers, each with its own courtyard, which I regard as four bayt s for the four lawful wives of the Muslim prince for whom it was built, as at Mshattā (Fig. 8).

In these bayts the side next the great corridor is bounded by a blind arcade of five arches, the central arch being occupied by the door. On the far side was a portico 2.80 m. deep of five arches resting on four round piers, and covered by a tunnel vault. The north and south sides are occupied by a triple-arched façade. These arches form a portico, behind which are three parallel tunnel-vaulted rooms. A passage leads from the courtyard to a room 17.60 m. long and 3˝ wide, placed transversely behind the three tunnel-vaulted rooms. It is covered by two lengths of tunnel-vault with a space open to the sky ¶ between. It must have been intended to contain a fire, for the vault next the outer wall is pierced by a pair of terra-cotta pipes, so it must have been a kitchen.

The palace was also provided with a mosque 24.20 m. wide and 15.15 deep, with a portico one aisle deep on the east, south and west sides, but without one on the north.

Uk̲h̲ayḍir was probably begun by ʿĪsā b. Mūsā, uncle of the Caliph al-Manṣūr, in 161/778.

At about this time the Aḳṣā Mosque at Jerusalem was partly rebuilt by the Caliph al-Mahdī. Recent research enables us to affirm that it then consisted of a central aisle 11.50 wide with seven aisles to right and seven to left about 6.25 m. in width, all covered by gable roofs and all perpendicular to the ḳibla wall. There was a great wooden dome at the end of the central aisle. On the north side was a large central door with seven smaller ones to right and left, and ten "unornamented" ones on the east side (Fig. 9).

There can be no doubt that this mosque had a great influence on the Great Mosque of Cordova built by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān I in 170/786-7. It was added to on three occasions but this earliest part still exists; as at Jerusalem the aisles, of which there are eleven, run perpendicular to the back wall, they are all covered by parallel gable roofs, and the central one is wider than the rest. The influence of Syria in Spain at this time is not surprising for Spain was full of Syrian refugees. The arcades each consist of twelve arches with twelve more above, an ingenious device whereby a height of ceiling of about 9.80 m. was obtained with columns which, with their capitals and bases, only measure 3.80 m. (Plate XIVc and XVa).

Another building of this period, of great importance for the history of architecture, is the Cistern of Ramla in Palestine, for it consists of a subterranean excavation 8 m. deep divided into six aisles by five arcades of four arches each, all of which are pointed and appear to be struck from two centres, varying from one seventh to one fifth of the span apart (Plate XV b and Fig. 10). And there can be no doubt about the date for on the plaster of the vault is a Kūfic inscription of Ḏh̲u ’l-Ḥid̲j̲d̲j̲a 172/May 789. It is therefore centuries earlier than the earliest pointed arches in Europe. ¶

In 212/827 ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṭāhir, the Governor of Egypt, ordered the Mosque of ʿAmr at Fusṭāṭ to be doubled in size by the addition to the west of its exact area in the same shape. Maḳrīzī ( Ḵh̲iṭaṭ . ii, 253) says that the part added included the great miḥrāb and all that is to the west of it. The number of doors was now thirteen: five on the N.-E., three on the N.-W., four on the S.-W., and one for the khaṭīb on the ḳibla side. This is the last recorded extention of the mosque, and its significance is of far reaching importance for it follows that no part of the present structure lying to the right of a line drawn through its centre can possibly be older than 212 A.H. The Mosque then measured internally (as it does to-day) 109 m. on the S.-E. side, 105.28 on the N.-W., 120.55 on the N.-E. and 117.28 on the S.W. As a result of a number of trial trenches made

between 1926 and 1933, we now know from the foundations that there were 7 arcades running from right to left on the ḳibla side and the same number on the side opposite, and four on the S.-W. side. On the N.-E. side the arcades ran perpendicular to the wall. The outer walls were about 10.50 m. high without their cresting, about which we know nothing. There were seventy-eight windows of very interesting construction. The span was about 2.70 m. There were engaged colonnettes at the inner and outer corners and a pair of dwarf marble columns placed on either side in the opening. A transverse beam resting on the latter reduced the span to about 1.90 m. The springing of the arch began about 1.40 m. above the sill, and the rise was about 1.40. Those arches which have survived are considerably stilted and very slightly pointed, and the broken edge of a stucco grille is visible along their intrados. A beam ran across the opening at the springing of the arch, and nailed to its inner side was a strip of carved woodwork which continued along the face of the wall. The decoration consists of a flowing acanthus frieze in which four-leaved ¶ whorls alternate with five-lobed leaves (Fig. 11). This is of fundamental importance, for it is derived from the Hellenistic art of Syria and it shows that the ʿAbbāsid art of ʿIrāḳ, which we find fifty years later in the Mosque of Ibn Ṭūlūn, had not yet reached Egypt.

The Great Mosque of Ḳayrawān is another famous mosque, founded in the early days of Islam, of which no part (excepting the minaret only) is earlier than the IXth century A.D. The oldest part of the present mosque dates from the rebuilding carried out by the Ag̲h̲labid Ziyādat Allāh in 221/836.

The measurements of the mosque are as follows: N. 65.60 m., S. 70.28, E. 121.80, W. 120.50. The sanctuary consisted of sixteen arcades of seven arches each, running perpendicular to the (ḳibla wall, but without reaching it, for a transverse arcade runs at a distance of about 6 m. from it and it is against this arcade that the sixteen arcades abut. The side aisles are 3.30 m. in width against 5.40 for the central aisle, which must have measured 6.60 m. originally, for its width has been subsequently reduced by two arcades built in contact with the old ones, without any bond or liaison of any sort. The column seven have their own impost blocks instead of each pair being tied together by a common impost block, and the arches of the "lining arcade" are pointed horse-shoe arches instead of round horse-shoe arches like all the rest (Plate XVI). There is no doubt that they are the work of Ibrāhīm II b. Aḥmad, 261-89 A.H. (see below). The whole was covered by a flat roof of uniform height, even over the central aisle, for the latter was only raised during the extensive works of Ibrāhīm II. There were no riwāḳ s on the three sides of ṣaḥn until the time ¶ of Ibrāhīm III. The outer walls were of stone, strengthened at intervals by buttresses.

This same year 221/836 was marked by an event of great importance—the foundation of Sāmarrā. The palace was built on the edge of the plateau, which is about 17 m. above the alluvial valley of the Tigris. In the valley itself is a great basin, 127 m. square, from which a great flight of steps, 60 m. broad, gently ascended to the terrace in front of the Bāb al-ʿĀmma. The latter consists of a great triple-arched façade, about 12 m. high, with three parallel tunnel-vaulted rooms behind it (Plate XVII a). This is the best preserved part of the whole palace; nearly everywhere else the walls either only rise a metre or two or have been exposed by excavation. Behind the Bāb al-ʿĀmma were six transverse halls, then a square court. To the north one reached the rooms of the Caliph, on the south was the Ḥarīm . But going directly forward led to an oblong Court of Honour, with the triple entrance of the Throne Room beyond it. The latter consisted of four T-shaped halls arranged in a cruciform fashion. Each one resembled a three-aisled basilica so as to obtain light from the clerestory. Between the arms of the cross are smaller rooms with marble dados, also a mosque for the Caliph with a miḥrāb . Beyond this again is the Great Esplanade, a great court or garden, 180 m. wide and 350 m. deep, intersected by little canals. Beyond again was the polo-ground, and the distance from the great basin to the race-course must have been nearly 1400 m.

The decoration consisted of, dados, generally of moulded stucco, except in the Throne-Room group where they are of marble slabs. The upper part of the walls in the Ḥarīm were decorated with fresco paintings, which included living forms and foliage. All woodwork was of teak, carved and painted.

The Great Mosque of this period has not survived, as it was entirely rebuilt in 234-7 H. Before describing it we must speak of the Great Mosque of Sūsa in Tunisia built in 236/850-1.

The mosque proper, excluding its annexes, is a perfectly regular rectangle built of stone in courses about ½ m. high and measuring internally 49.39 m. deep and 57.16 wide. The ṣaḥn , which measures 41×22¼ m., is surrounded by low arcades of slightly horse-shoe form, resting on squat T-shaped piers. There are eleven arches to north and south and six to east and west, and the height of the façade is about 6˝ m. It is perfectly plain except for a splay-face moulding, immediately above which is a fine inscription frieze in simple undecorated Kūfic, the maximum height of the characters being 28 cm. The band on which they are carved curves forward slightly to compensate for foreshortening and thus help the observer at ground level. This is the earliest known example of this treatment, which passed into Egypt with the Fāṭimids and appears in the Mosque of al-Ḥākim, 380-403/990-1013. The three riwāḳ s vary in depth from 4.08-4.27 m. and each is covered by a tunnel-vault (Plate XVIII a).

The sanctuary consists of thirteen aisles formed by twelve arcades of six arches each running towards the ḳibla wall. Each aisle is divided into six bays by other arcades running from east to west. All these arches, which rest on squat cruciform piers, are of horse-shoe form. The first three bays going south are covered by tunnel-vaults, with one exception, the third bay in the central aisle, which is covered by a dome on an octagonal drum with slightly incurved faces. ¶

The next three bays going south are covered by cross-vaults at a slightly higher level. Here again the third bay in the central aisle is covered by a dome on squinches. It is obvious that the mosque has been extended towards the south, that the first three bays are the original part and that the first dome marks the bay in front of the original miḥrāb (Plate XVIIIb), which has been removed together with the original back wall. Before that the depth of the mosque must have been 44 m. The date of the original work is given by the great Kūfic inscription as 236/850-1.

The Great Mosque of Sāmārrā was rebuilt by Mutawakkil; the work was begun in 234/848-9 and finished in Ramaḍān 237/Feb.-March, 852. It is the largest mosque ever built, for its outer walls form an immense rectangle of kiln-baked bricks measuring roughly 240 m. deep internally by 156 m. wide (proportion approximately as 3:2); its area therefore is nearly 38,000 sq.m. Only the enclosing walls have been preserved; they are 2.65 m. thick, strengthened by half round towers averaging 3.60 m. in diameter with a projection of 2.15 m., and the curtain walls between them average 15 m. in length. There are four corner towers, twelve intermediate towers to east and west and eight to north and south making forty-four in all. There were sixteen rectangular doorways spanned by beams with a relieving arch above.

The towers are perfectly plain, but each curtain wall is decorated with a frieze of six recessed squares with bevelled edges; in each square is a shallow saucer about a metre in diameter and 25 cms. deep. The total height of the walls is now about 10.50. In spite of its simplicity the whole effect is truly monumental (Plate XVII b).

The south wall is pierced by twenty-four windows placed on the axis of the twenty-five aisles of the sanctuary, except the central one, for there was no room above the miḥrāb. There were two more windows on each side making 28 in all. Externally they are narrow rectangular openings, but internally they are splayed and covered by scalloped arches of five lobes resting on little engaged columns, the whole being set in a sunk rectangular frame.

Herzfeld’s excavations showed that the roof rested directly on octagonal piers of brick, with marble colonnettes at the four corners, making a support 2.07 m. square. The clear height within was 10.35. There were no arches .

The mosque proper was surrounded by an outer enclosure, or ziyāda , on the east, north and west sides, and air photographs show that the great rectangle thus formed stood in a still greater enclosure measuring 376×444 m.

The minaret, the famous Malwiyya, stands free, at a distance of 27¼ m. from the north wall of the mosque. There is a square socle, 33 m. a side and about 3 m. high, on which rests a spiral tower with a ramp about 2.30 m. wide, which winds round in an anti-clockwise direction until it has made five complete turns. The rise for each turn is 6.10 m., but as the length of each turn is less than the previous one it follows that the slope inevitably becomes steeper and steeper. At the summit of this spiral part is a cylindrical storey, decorated with eight recesses, each set in a shallow frame (Plate XVIIIc). The southern niche frames a doorway at which the ramp ends; it opens on to a steep staircase, at first straight then spiral, leading to the top platform which is 50 m. above the socle. From eight holes to be seen Herzfeld concluded that there was probably a little pavilion on wooden columns here.¶

A few years later, between A.D. 860 and 861, another immense mosque was built by the same Caliph at Abū Dulaf to the north of Sāmarrā. It measures internally 213 m. from north to south and 135 from east to west. Here the outer walls are of mud brick about 1.60 m. thick strengthened by half-round buttresses, but the roof rested on arcades of burnt brick running from north to south; it was apparently only about 8 m. high. The sanctuary is divided into seventeen aisles by sixteen arcades of five arches each with an average span of 3.13 m. The two outer arcades are carried right through to the north end of the mosque, forming side riwāḳs 14 m. in depth. The northern riwāḳ resembles the southern one, except that it is only three arches deep. On the north side and about 9.60 m. from the mosque is a miniature Malwiyya on a socle about 11.20 m. square, above which is the much damaged spiral part which barely makes three turns.

Ten years later important works were carried out in the Great Mosque of Ḳayrawān by Abū Ibrāhīm Aḥmad, who reduced the width of the central aisle by about 1.20 m. by constructing two new arcades in contact with the old ones. The arches of these arcades are pointed horse-shoe arches instead of round horse-shoe arches like those they are in contact with. He also built three free-standing arches and one wall-arch of the same type to carry a fluted dome in front of the mihrâb . They rise to a height of 9.15 m., and the square thus formed is terminated above by a cornice, its top edge being 10.83 m. from the ground. On it rests the octagonal zone of transition, 2.15 m. in height, which is formed by eight semi-circular arches springing from colonnettes resting on little corbels inserted in the cornice just mentioned. The drum is composed of eight arched windows and sixteen arched panels arranged in pairs between the windows. The dome, which is 5.80 m. in diameter, has twenty-four ribs, each springing from a little corbel. Between the ribs are concave segments, 30 cm. deep at the base and diminishing to nothing at the apex. The whole composition is charming. Externally the dome resembles a cantaloup melon, with 24 convex ribs (corresponding to the 24 concave segments) which taper to nothing at the apex (Plate XIXa and XX). Abū Ibrāhīm’s work was carried out in 248/862-3. He also lined the miḥrāb with a series of very beautiful carved marble panels assembled in four tiers of seven panels each; total height 2.72 m. He also decorated the face of the miḥrāb and the wall surrounding it with lustre titles about 21 cm. square (Plate XIXb). The marble panels and the tiles had been imported by him from ʿIrāḳ, and the latter constitute the oldest examples of lustre pottery of certain date.

The Mosque of Ibn Ṭūlūn

In 263 A.H. Aḥmad b. Ṭūlūn decided to built a new mosque on an outcrop of rock called Ḏj̲abal Yas̲h̲kur. The scheme of the mosque can be seen from the plan (Fig. 12) and the general view (Plate XXI) taken from the minaret of the Madrasa of Ṣarg̲h̲itmis̲h̲. It consists of a ṣaḥn of about 92 m. square surrounded by riwāḳs, five aisles deep on the ḳibla side and two aisles only on the other sides. This part—the mosque proper—is enclosed by a wall with a remarkable . cresting, and forms a great rectangle measuring 122.26 m. in width and 140.33 in width. It is surrounded by a great outer court or ziyāda , except on the south-eastern (ḳibla) side which was occupied by a private apartment of the amīr, the Dār al-Imāra. This outer ziyāda is roughly 19 m. broad ¶ and its outer walls are lower than those of the mosque proper. The whole forms a great rectangle almost exactly square, measuring 162 m. in depth and 162.46 in width, constructed of red bricks, measuring roughly 18×8×4 cm., coated with a very hard stucco in which the ornament is cut. No. wooden ties are used anywhere, except at the tops of the piers.

It results from careful measurements that the unit employed for setting out the mosque was the Nilometric cubit of 54.04 cm., for the principal dimensions are almost exact multiples of it.

The scheme of the façade of the mosque proper is as follows. It would seem that the architect set out his design by bisecting the façade as regards its height and then took this median line for the level of the window sills. Then the plain lower part was pierced by seven rectangular doorways, and the upper part by thirty-one pointed-arched windows, with their sills from 5.70 to 5.86 m. above the floor. The window-arches rest on stumpy engaged colonnettes of brick exactly as in that part of the Mosque of ʿAmr which dates from 212 A.H. The walls are 10.03 m. in height up to the roof level, above which is a row of pierced circles in squares and then a curious open work cresting, making a total height of 13.03 m. above the sills of the doorways (Plate XXII a). The latter are perfectly plain except for the carved wooden soffits, of which four original ones remain. In addition to the seventeen large and two small doors leading from the ziyādas into the mosque proper there are four in the ḳibla wall, one of which leads into the room behind the miḥrāb. This must be the door mentioned by Maḳrīzī (ii, 269, l. 22 ff.) which enabled Ibn Ṭūlūn to go directly from the Dār al-Imāra to the maḳsūra next the miḥrāb and the minbar , as was the practice during the first three centuries of Islam.

The ṣaḥn is roughly 92 m. square with thirteen pointed arches on each side (Plate XXIIb). The sanctuary is formed by five arcades of seventeen arches each, and the riwāḳ opposite by two arcades. These seven arcades are carried right through to the side walls. The arcades of the lateral riwāḳs, however, abut against the outer arcades of the sanctuary and N.-W. riwāḳ and consequently consist of thirteen arches only. The arches rest on piers 2.46 m. wide and 1.27 m. deep, with engaged brick columns at the corners. They are placed about 4.60 m. apart. Dovetailed wooden plates are used round the tops of these piers to strengthen them. The pier-capitals are derived from late Corinthian capitals, the two tiers of acanthus being replaced by conventionalized Sāmarrā vine leaves (Plate XXIII a).

The soffits of the arches are decorated with bands of stucco ornament, of which about ten are fairly well preserved (Plate XXIV). All consist of a very broad central strip between narrow double borders. The central strip in every case consists of a geometrical frame-work, the interstices of which are filled with various elements belonging to style B of Sāmarrā (Fig. 13). In addition to this a continuous border of ornament, 46 cm. wide, runs round the arches on both faces, turns, at right angles at the springing, runs across the top of the pier, and then turns again at right angles to run round the next arch. A frieze of stucco ornament runs along just above the band of ornament running round the arches. About 20 cm. above this ran the famous Kūfic inscription carved on wood, of which a fair amount still remains, running along about 30 cm. below the beams of the ceiling. Calculation shows that this frieze, which must have been over 2 km. long, may have contained about one seventeenth part of the Ḳurʾān.

The windows, in the shadow of the aisles, stand out against the sky like delicate lacework and form one of the most beautiful features of the mosque. There are 128 in all. Each consists of a pointed arch springing from a pair of engaged dwarf columns with stucco capitals, and a border of stucco ornament runs round each, turns at right angles at the springing and runs along horizontally to the next window (Plate XXIII b-c). Unfortunately only three, or at most four, of the window-grilles are original. These are mainly composed of compass work, i.e. intersecting circles and segments of circles; two have been set out by a method similar to that employed for one of the marble grilles in the Great Mosque at Damascus (Plate VIII b), the third on a network of equilateral triangles (Fig. 14).

The pendentives of the present wooden dome in front of the miḥrāb , on stylistic grounds, are undoubtedly the work of Lād̲j̲īn in 696 A.H., and the dome is much later. I very much doubt if there was a dome here originally. The present minaret is likewise the work of Lād̲j̲īn, the original one (seen, by Muḳaddasī) was probably fairly similar to the Malwiyya of Sāmarrā.

The statement of al-Ḳūḍāʿī, quoted by Ibn Duḳmāḳ and Maḳrīzī, that the Mosque of Ibn Ṭūlūn was built after the style ( ʿalā bināʾ ) of the Mosque of Sāmarrā (unless it refers to the general impression produced by the minaret) is certainly not correct, for its plan does not in the least resemble either of the two mosques of Sāmarrā, except that all three are surrounded by ziyādas . It differs from

the Great Mosque of Sāmarrā in the number of its aisles 5, 2, 2, 2 instead of 9, 4, 4, 3. As for the Mosque of Abū Dulaf, its aisles run perpendicular to the ḳibla wall instead of parallel to it. It also differs from the Great Mosque of Sāmarrā in that its roof rests on arcades instead of directly on the piers. Its piers alone recall those of Sāmarrā, but whereas the piers at Sāmarrā are square and have engaged marble columns at the corners, those of Ibn Ṭūlūn are oblong and the columns at the corners are only counterfeited in the brickwork. Neither does the scheme of the façade recall either of the mosques of Sāmarrā for it has no bastions. The sole feature of the façade that recalls Sāmarrā is the. row of circles in squares below the cresting. Its windows in no way resemble those of the Great Mosque, which are few in number, have lobed arches internally and are treated externally like arrow-slits, but they do resemble those of the mosque of ʿAmr of 212 A.H., except that they lack the transverse beam and carved wooden frieze. In other words, Ibn Ṭūlūn’s façade is derived from that of the Mosque of ʿAmr of 212/827 and, as no such façade is known elsewhere, must be regarded as Egyptian.

As regards the ornament, everybody now agrees that it is derived from Sāmarrā, but whereas at Sāmarrā the three styles, A, B and C, occur separately, in the mosque of Ibn Ṭūlūn they are combined and mixed. By its ornament and in certain other respects the mosque may be regarded as a foreign, ʿIrāḳī building planted down on the soil of Egypt, and large numbers of ʿIrāḳī craftsmen must have been employed for its decoration in wood and stucco. Its ornament and that of the Dayr al-Suryānī in the Wāḍī Natrūn are the two most westerly examples of the art of the ʿAbbāsid Empire, which prevailed over a large area, from Baḥrayn and Nīs̲h̲apūr to Samarḳand.

Summary : Under the ʿAbbāsids the Hellenistic influences of Syria were replaced by the surviving influences of Sāsānian Persia, which profoundly modified the art and architecture, and this gave birth to the art of Sāmarrā, the influence of which extended to Egypt under Ibn Ṭūlūn, to Nis̲h̲āpūr and Baḥrayn. In palace architecture there was a vast difference between that of the Umayyads and ʿAbbāsids, partly due to the adoption of Persian ideas of royalty which almost deified the king. Hence elaborate throne-rooms, generally domed, for private audience, preceded by a vaulted līwān (or four radiating līwāns ) for public audience. The bayts also were different, following the type of Ḳaṣr-i S̲h̲īrīn and not the Syrian type of Ms̲h̲attā and Ḳaṣr al-Ṭūba. The scale was immense and axial planning is a marked feature. But all are built of brick and a great part of that basest of materials—mud brick—hidden by thick coats of stucco. A new type of pointed arch appears, the four-centred arch. The earliest existing squinches in Islam date from this period. An important innovation was the introduction of lustre tiles, the earliest examples being those brought to Ḳayrawān from ʿIrāḳ in 248 A.H. Bands of inscription were usually made to stand out on a blue background. But the widespread influence of ʿAbbāsid art did not extend to Spain, where Umayyad art, brought. thither by Syrian refugees, was still full of life.

Bibliography

de Vogüé, Le Temple de Jérusalem, 1864

E. T. Richmond, The Dome of the Rock, 1924

idem, Moslem Architecture (Forlong Fund, iii), 1926

J. Sauvaget, La Mosquée omeyyade de Médine, 1947

Watzinger and Wulzinger, Damaskus, 2 vols., 1921-4

A. Musil, Ḳuṣejr ʿAmra, ¶ 2 vols., 1907

Schulz and Stryzgowski, Mshatta, in the Jahrb. der Preusz. Kunstsammlungen, 1904, 205-373

Herzfeld, Die Genesis der islamischen Kunst und das Mshattā Problem, Der Islam, i, 1-61

O. Puttrich-Reignard, Die Palastanlage von Chirbet Minje, Palästina-Hefte des Deutschen Vereins vom Heiligen Lande, Heft 17-20, 1939

articles on Khirbet al-Mafjīr by R. W. Hamilton, Baramke and others, in the Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, vols v-xiv

C. Nizet, La Mosquée de Cordoue, 1905

Oscar Reuther, Ocheidir, Leipzig 1902

Gertrude L. Bell, Ukhaiḍir, Oxford, 1914

Sarre and Herzfeld, Archäologische Reize im Ephrat-und Tigris-Gebiet, 4 vols., 1911-20

E. Herzfeld, Samarra: Der Wandschmuck, 1923

idem, Die Malereien, 1927

idem, Geschichte der Stadt Samarra, 1948

G. Marçais, Coupole et Plafonds de la Grande Mosquée de Kairouan, Paris 1925

idem L’Art de. l’Islam, 1947

idem, L’Architecture musulmane d’Occident, Paris 1955

G. T. Rivoira, Moslem Architecture, Rushforth’s translation, Oxford 1918

K. A. C. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture, 2 vols., Oxford 1932-40.

(K.A.C. Creswell).

II. For later architectural developments, see the articles on individual countries, cities, and dynasties.

III. For the types of buildings, see bināʾ .

Cite this page

Creswell, K.A.C., “Architecture”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 10 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0062>