posted
Last Thursday, I had to run out of my art history lecture on Islamic Art because my stomach was bothering me. Unfortunately, the textbook for class seems to be somewhat light on the topic. I'll be doing my class outline today on Islamic Art, and if anyone has actually visited or has thoughts on the following structures, I would greatly appreciate the benefit of his or her insight.
Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem, Isreal Great Mosque, Samarra, Iraq Great Mosque, Cordoba, Spain Lahori: Taj Mahal, Agra, India
Some of the above buildings above have been featured in our book for thier significance to Islamic as well as Christian and Judaic traditions. (For example, the Dome of the Rock.) If anyone has seen or toured these buildings, it would be really helpful to know what your experience was like.
posted
How does the "do your own homework" lecture go? I have not been any of those places. About all I know about Islamic art is that they are very serious about the "no images" part of the 10 commandments, and so there are never pictures of people or animals. They do a lot with other decorating. Decorative scripts and patterns are very imporant. I think I saw a picture of the Spanish one, and it had this amazing matrix of arches of diminishing size. It was almost fractal.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, mothertree. I'm not asking for answers--just impressions--like your "fractal' comment. The book's pretty general; what I missed in class was my instructor's slides on each building, and her comments. I usually use my notes to build an outline, but today, I'm taking the generalities from the text and hoping to "fill" from additional sources.
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
What's it close to? I've got a paragraph that says it was commissioned by a caliph who wanted to "dazzle the minds" of Muslims, and distract them from Christian buildings in Jerusalem.
Also, the rock outcropping that's enclosed inside the dome is sacred for a bunch of different reasons--is the interior of the dome also gilded? What's the inside like?
The most important question for me is, when you look at it/walk into it, what it's like? What strikes you about it? What do people point out about it the most often?
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've actually never been inside... my father has, but it's not allowed anymore, unless you're Muslim, and are going inside the mosque to pray. You can't go in as a "tourist" or "outsider."
It was designed by a man who converted to Islam, and there's an interesting story about how it was built. The ex-Jew wanted to build it on the other side (the East side, I think) of Al Aqtza (sp?), the other mosque that's up there next to it. He said that that way, when people pray in Al Aqtza they can pray to Mecca, and the rock at the same time. The co-designer told him that he's still thinking like a Jew -- that when Muslims pray in the direction of Mecca, they pray to Mecca and nothing else. So the Dome of the Rock was built West of Al Aqtza. But what you said about "dazzling the minds" is likely true as well.
It certainly works on me. It's a dazzling building. It's very ornate, and beautiful from the outside. It's one of those buildings that if you can see even a tiny bit of it... from the top of a mountain somewhere, or something... it's not a sight you'll ever forget. It's the typical building associated with a "Jerusalem View," and that's for a reason! The colors are vibrant... everyone knows about the gold dome, but the building itself is bright blue. It's got designs over every inch of the base, but the background color is blue. It's also situated in a huge open space, that feels almost like a public park... the part nearer to Al Aqtza has some trees, and grassy areas, just like a park. The Dome of the Rock is on a huge stone pavement, that feels like it surrounds it. But it makes the Dome of the Rock look even bigger, because there's nothing around it at all. It's the solitary thing in this expanse of stone.
Thanks very much--this is great. If you know offhand, do you know if the Dome of the Rock was built strictly for congregational worship, and would that necessarily include worship of Mecca?
I think this is more of a question on the practice of Islam--I know you have got a lot on your plate today. Thanks for your help; please take care of yourself.
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, I really don't know the answer to your question!
Thank you, too... I will. And it's really no trouble, I can rave about this city for a very long time. Posts: 7877 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
About the only thing I remember about Islamic art were the spectacular mosaic tile designs they used to decorate the Mosque's. Sometimes they have really intricate interlocking designs.
M.C. Escher studied these mosaics which helped him learn how to do the positive/negative fish morphing into birds or interlocking lizard designs he was famous for.
Raia, thanks for the first hand information. It’s always good to hear first hand accounts.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was referring purely to the physical side of it, and to the effect that it has when I look at it. I didn't even try to delve into it religiously, mainly because I'm not a religious Jew, I'm secular, and therefore ignorant. But I don't know nearly enough about it to be able to judge it that way.
As a building, it's an architectural masterpiece, and it's magnificent. It's a gorgeous building to look at.
Posts: 7877 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My interest is from the perspective of the objective third party--I'd like any impression you feel comfortable sharing.
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out that Muslims don't worship Mecca. They orient themselves toward Mecca, because it's their holiest city. But they don't worship Mecca. They worship God.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Dome of the Rock is noteworthy mostly for being so dang old. It dates from the seventh century and is one of the oldest intact buildings in the area. The interior is decorated with a lot of calligraphy and isn't built like a typical mosque (with the square, pillared plan) but rather like an early Christian ambulatory church (with a round walkway around a central object - it this case, the rock.) This makes it more of a shrine than a mosque, and it is noteworthy for its location and age more than anything. (In case anyone missed the implications in Rivka and Raia's discussion, it is built on the site of the Hebrew temple; all that is left to the Jews of their historic place of worship, which is also the traditional location of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, is the western wall.)
A good contemporary building to compare to the Dome of the Rock is the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna; a Byzantine Christian church built as a memorial to the daughter of an emporer that follows the same basic layout plan. This was sort of the beginning of the ambulatory tradition that would follow in European architecture, but isn't really seen anywhere else in Islamic architecture.
Cordoba is a very important structure in terms of influence on European architecture, and this can be seen especially in Crusade-era constructions. Unlike the Dome of the Rock, it is layed out like a mosque rather than in the Roman basilica style that European churches follow. But its famous red and white striped arches had an evident influence on Crusading Europeans as can be seen in the romanesque cathedral at Vezelay, France.
The mosque at Samarra is noteworthy mostly for its huge minaret and is always brought up in discussions of the parts of a mosque I don't have much experience with it, but there is a good page on it here.
The Taj Mahal is noteworthy for being one of the few Islamic structures created for a secular purpose. It's the shrine to the Caliph's wife, Mumtaz Mahal, who died in childbirth. Its architecture takes more from the Hindu temple and palace styles than anything specifically Islamic, but it is a curious mix of native Indian style and deliberate Muslim function. It has four minarets and is inscribed with Koran verses. It dates from the 17th century and so is understandably more advanced and ornate than most other Islamic architecture. There is a lavishness about it and deliberate ostentation that sets it apart from most mosque architecture.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh - also, compare the windowed dome format of the Dome of the Rock to the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. The Hagia Sophia was origianlly a Byzantine church built by Justinian and the central dome with lighting from above was created intentionally to represent the holy light of God. This was shortly before the Dome of the Rock, and must have been at least somewhat influential.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raia: I was referring purely to the physical side of it, and to the effect that it has when I look at it. I didn't even try to delve into it religiously, mainly because I'm not a religious Jew, I'm secular, and therefore ignorant. But I don't know nearly enough about it to be able to judge it that way.
As a building, it's an architectural masterpiece, and it's magnificent. It's a gorgeous building to look at.
I understand that. And I agree with your architectural assessment. But I am unable to see it that way.
As I said, I'm biased. Biased by the fact that it is a place from which rocks, garbage, and worse have rained down on worshipers at the Western Wall -- and not only in recent times. By the fact that I know, in my deepest heart, that it is a pale and twisted reflection of what should rightfully stand there.
Do I see the reflection of the sun, particularly near sunset, off the Dome and marvel? Yes, certainly. It is a lovely building. But I am unable to see it as merely that.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand that rivka... I was just saying that I was disregarding that side of it in my assessment. I know it's not possible for everyone to do that! *hugs*
Posts: 7877 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just got back from a 10 day jaunt in Israel. Like many, I think the most moving part of the trip was my visit to the Kotel. It was chilling being in the tunnels underneath at the one spot with the rock on the other side of the wall. Just knowing that it is the closest I will probably ever get to one of the most holiest items to all three religions.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think I saw a picture of the Spanish one, and it had this amazing matrix of arches of diminishing size. It was almost fractal.
Mothertree, could it have been the Alhambra? The famous muqarnas dome there is possibly one of the coolest things architecture has ever produced.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe. I think the expression "pale and twisted" is a little unfortunate, and doesn't reflect the level of respect I've seen you ask of others on this site. Though I believe the comments about garbage being thrown on worshippers.
The dome of the rock stands where it does because the rock apparently has prints from the hooves of Mohammed's horse. There is more too it but I'm a little sketchy on the details. I just thought I'd mention it. Also, in the Islamic view it was Ishmael who was (edit: Almost!)sacrificed there and not Isaac. I tend to believe it was Isaac, personally. Just mentioning why it's such a bone of contention to any who may be following this thread.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ok, I get the thing about the garbage, but I'm not clear on the historical perspective. Muslims didn't tear down the Jewish temple, they tore down a Roman one.
Does that make any difference to you? Or is there something else I'm missing?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that there's strong evidence the Temple used to be there, and that if the Temple is to be rebuilt, it is supposed to go on the same spot. Culpability over tearing down the Temple won't really play an important part in the attitudes of people who believe this to be the case toward the existence of the Dome of the Rock.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe, but it seems to me that if the Roman temple were still standing, Muslims and Jews would both want it torn down to replace it with some form of tribute to Abraham, regardless whether it's also a tribute to Muhammad or Solomon.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By Roman temple are you referring to the temple of Herod? Because I'm pretty sure that was a Jewish temple - a rebuilding of Solomon's temple. It wasn't dedicated to a Roman God.
But maybe there was one there between 70 AD and the Dome of the Rock that I'm unaware of.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand the Romans tore down the second Jewish temple to be built there and then later on after Muslims won control of the area they built the Dome of the Rock.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It was chilling being in the tunnels underneath at the one spot with the rock on the other side of the wall.
Aren't those tunnels awesome!? (literally!) I haven't been on the tunnel tour in over 12 years -- I really wanted to go the last time I was there, but couldn't fit it in.
quote:I think the expression "pale and twisted" is a little unfortunate, and doesn't reflect the level of respect I've seen you ask of others on this site.
I was asked for my perspective on a specific building. I gave it. I do not feel I owe an apology for that -- I stated my bias upfront.
quote:
quote: Ok, I get the thing about the garbage, but I'm not clear on the historical perspective. Muslims didn't tear down the Jewish temple, they tore down a Roman one.
Does that make any difference to you? Or is there something else I'm missing?
My understanding is that there's strong evidence the Temple used to be there, and that if the Temple is to be rebuilt, it is supposed to go on the same spot. Culpability over tearing down the Temple won't really play an important part in the attitudes of people who believe this to be the case toward the existence of the Dome of the Rock.
Dags is correct. It's not an issue of blame; it's an issue of rightful place.
And Jews have NO interest in there being any "form of tribute to Abraham"! Or Solomon either. The Temple is God's House, and no tribute to any man. (I believe Muslims view the Dome in much the same way, and would also object to it being considered a tribute to Muhammad.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was asked for my perspective on a specific building. I gave it. I do not feel I owe an apology for that -- I stated my bias upfront.
As the person who asked for rivka's opinion, I concur. Further, I fail to see how sharing her thoughts on this issue shows a lack of respect. Given the context, "pale and twisted" is likely an understatement of rivka's emotional response to the Dome of the Rock.
quote: Muslims and Jews would both want it torn down to replace it with some form of tribute to Abraham
Religious architecture is not always about "tribute", ie, building or creating monuments to show allegiance to someone or something. In the case of the Dome, it's about enclosing a sacred area--the Muslims believe that Muhammed was taken to the hereafter on the site enclosed by the Dome, and Jews believe that their Temple was there--in addition to its significance as the site of the Holy of Holies.
The difference being tribute and enclosure is huge--it ups the emotional ante by several magnitudes. It's not just a question of whose statue is there, but one of being able to experience the physical presence of God.
Thank you to everyone who posted--your impressions helped me a great deal, and gave me a lot to think about.
posted
Wow, that definition of the word "tribute" didn't even occur to me as I wrote the question. Yeah, I can see that I used the wrong word.
I merely meant that the religious/historical context of Abraham's sacrifice is at the root of both religions: The recognition of the single god. The roman temple didn't reflect this, but the dome does.
Actually, in looking around, I found this: (http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/7.1C.htm)
"The Dome of the Rock was constructed by Abd al-Malik in 692 C.E. (on top of an older Christian Church) as a place of prayer for all “Peoples of the Book.” It was an ecumenical structure. All Peoples of the Book are to be honored, so says the inscription in Arabic on the inside of the Dome of the Rock."
From what I can get, the temple was torn down by romans in 70 C.E. and replaced with a temple to Jupiter. This was not torn down when Rome converted, but was used for Christian worship until it was torn down to build the Dome.
If anyone should be offended by the Dome of the Rock, it would be Christians, for the following inscription:
"O you People of the Book, overstep not bounds in your religion, and of God speak only the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only an apostle of God, and his Word which he conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from him. Believe therefore in God and his apostles, and say not Three. It will be better for you. God is only one God. Far be it from his glory that he should have a son."
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, is it your position that this inscription somehow trumps being completely excluded from a space that a religion holds sacred?
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, as time passes, there are different levels of acceptance between religions, but when the Dome of the Rock was built it was not to exclude, but to include: "people of the book." The Dome is not a Mosque, and Jews, Muslims, and Christians were all allowed in as pilgrims to a sacred site.
I quoted that portion of the inscription to show that it might be found insulting by Christians, but it shouldn't be insulting to Jews. Even then, the message is directed at Christians, who had to get inside in order to read it.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
In other words, if the site of the temple were unavailable for reasons that can't be assigned to a person or group of people, would the feeling be the same?
Raia said her father has been inside the Dome, so I assume the displacement is recent. Given the "a place of prayer for all 'Peoples of the Book.'" quote, I assume that Jews have historically been allowed to pray there.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Ok, this gets complicated and very theological -- keep in mind, you asked.
Regardless of whether those with current possession of the Temple Mount would allow me to, I would not set foot on it in my current state of tum'ah (untranslatable: closest, "ritual impurity") -- a state everyone currently living shares (and will until such time as the Third Temple is built, and the ashes of the red heifer can again be used). No religious Jew would.
Actually, the fact that others can/do/would is deeply (uh, no English word for this concept -- I'm having trouble coming up with a word in ANY language for it) . . . troublesome? (troubling? insulting? no, that places blame again. uh . . . yeah, I'll stick with troubling)
So that's issue number one: it is a holy place, and none is currently able to be there as they should be, so no one should be there at all. Let along building shrines of their own! Add to that the fact that Muslim authorities claim that the site is not, in fact, the site of the Temple (and have gone so far as to destroy archaeological artifacts found there) . . .
Issue number two is the fact that the Dome and the area around it have been a convenient spot to toss refuse, rocks, and bombs down on worshipers at the Wall for a long time -- although it's gotten worse in the past 30 years or so. Even before that, so much refuse was once tossed down from there (over the course of many years) that the Wall was completely covered in garbage for over 100 years (until some time in the 1800s, I think).
There is a long, complex history there.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I have not been any of those places. About all I know about Islamic art is that they are very serious about the "no images" part of the 10 commandments, and so there are never pictures of people or animals. They do a lot with other decorating. Decorative scripts and patterns are very imporant. I think I saw a picture of the Spanish one, and it had this amazing matrix of arches of diminishing size. It was almost fractal.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But I don't know nearly enough about it to be able to judge it that way.
