# Is there Islamic Architecture?



## idiamindada

Note that DOME is not a product of Islamic civilization.

it's originated from ROME (Roman Empire) and Eastern Roman (Byzantine).

So, Turkey deserve that dome with pendentive system as it was born there!










Pendentive system in dome invention by the byzantium.


----------



## idiamindada

end2012 said:


> Taj Mahal borrow from many places - Pietra-Dura inlay from Italy, Dome from Persia, Carving, aesthetic plan and proportion from India....etc.
> 
> Purpose is Islamic tomb, but many different borrowings.


seems that very clear you don't have knowledge in architecture.


----------



## luci203

Mosque in China.


----------



## guy4versa4

that is mosque in china-with chinese temple architecture(pagoda)


----------



## Cyrus

An Islamic building in Isfahan, 2nd cultural capital of Islamic world after Mecca: (!!!!!)


----------



## end2012

That is not Islamic it is Christian Church with Persian architecture. Similarly the China mosque is Chinese architecture.


----------



## guy4versa4

that is no islamic architecture..animal and human figure are not allowed in islamic pattern..i think that building have mixed architecture,the geometric and the floral motif in mosaic is very islamic style,while animal and human figure are not


----------



## Cyrus

end2012 said:


> That is not Islamic it is Christian Church with Persian architecture. Similarly the China mosque is Chinese architecture.


Of course, I meant the same thing, an ancient Persian building, hundreds years before Islam:


----------



## guy4versa4

you all condem islamic architecture,u said its all from west,copy from this,steal from that and bla bla.....how about mcd architecture?that is totally unnessary..and totally mess up


----------



## end2012

I do not condemn anything. If somebody say : "This is Christian architecture" then I would say the same thing that there is nothing like "Christian" architecture.


----------



## KWT

I think Cyrus thinks this is a rhetorical question, so I'm not sure why he's even bothering to ask people if he thinks he knows the answer. Unless this is just a thinly veiled pretext to convey obvious contemptuous sentiments. Against whom does he harbor this contempt? I can only take a wild guess LOL. 

Cyrus, do you propose we change the name from Islamic architecture to Persian architecture because some regions of the Abbassid Empire (mainly Iran and modern-day Iraq) had Sassanian influences? Should we change the name of Roman, Baroque and Renaissance architecture to Greek architecture? Because, you know, they borrowed a lot more from Greece than "Islamic" architecture did from the Sassanians. Actually the Greeks borrowed from even earlier civilizations and developed their own unique architecture. This sort of thing happens everywhere, but nobody makes a big deal out of it. Only when it comes to Islamic architecture do people like you start saying preposterous things like (I'm paraphrasing here) "Islamic architecture doesn't exist...everything is Persian" or some other moron says "the Taj Mahal is Italian and Hindu". Ridiculous.

If you have a problem with the nomenclature, then give us an alternative (please don't say Persian, because you're gonna put your foot in your mouth). But obviously you don't give a shit about that because by posting this thread you think you're doing some sort of "service" to Persian culture.


----------



## end2012

Are you calling me moron? Pietra-Dura inlay is developed in Italy and borrowed by Indian to use in Taj Mahal. If you do not believe then find out before saying moron.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietra_dura

Who is real moron now?


----------



## guy4versa4

pietra dura is a term for the *technique of using cut and fitted*, highly-polished colored stones to create images. It is considered a decorative art..its a technique bro..not architecture style..the motif of tajmahal is still islamic motif with geometri and flower patern,its only using a technique from rome..i think u still dont no the diffrent between architecture style and decorative..


----------



## KWT

end2012 said:


> Are you calling me moron? Pietra-Dura inlay is developed in Italy and borrowed by Indian to use in Taj Mahal. If you do not believe then find out before saying moron.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietra_dura
> 
> Who is real moron now?


Mhhhmm


----------



## KWT

I think I've said all I have to say about this.


----------



## end2012

guy4versa4 said:


> pietra dura is a term for the *technique of using cut and fitted*, highly-polished colored stones to create images. It is considered a decorative art..its a technique bro..not architecture style..the motif of tajmahal is still islamic motif with geometri and flower patern,its only using a technique from rome..i think u still dont no the diffrent between architecture style and decorative..


Flower pattern used in Italy Pietra-Dura style also: 




















Taj (Indian interpretation) Pietra Dura:


----------



## guy4versa4

most of islamic architecture have floral motif,its because islamic forbid to used animal and human figure in any kind of shape,its not copying from rome..but this the only patern allowed in islamic world
tokapi palace








islamic art center malaysia








old Quran








islamic floral mosaic








putra mosque


----------



## end2012

^That is Persian tile decoration, which develop before Islamic era. True that Islam forbid images so use a lot of floral decoration, but it borrow the technique from Persia.

http://www.iranchamber.com/art/articles/tile_history1.php


----------



## tpe

Islamic Art is necessarily defined as the art of the Moslem Empires and Civilizations that were a direct response to the inspiration of the Islamic religion.

A similar statement can be made about Christian Art. For example, the Christian Nestorian Art in China has very little in common stylistically with the Christian Art of Europe, or the Christian art of Egypt. But thematically and iconographically, they have similarities, naturally. They all come under the general terminology of "Christian Art". "Christian Art" does not mean having one style or one aesthetic/architectural school of thought. 

Like Christian Art, Islamic Art is heterogeneous.

Still, one can identify key/major influences in what is called Classical Islamic Art. They are:

* The Art of Greater Persia (from Sassanian to the Caliphate to Savafid, and beyond).
* The Timurid and Turkic Central Asian Flowering.
* Islamic Art of the Greater Mediterranean (this includes the Islamic response to the Greco-Roman, Byzantine and Egyptian and North African aesthetic.)

These are what constitute the heartland of Classical Islamic Art.


----------



## hadeer992

I think the mosques represent the true Islamic architecture, which usually consist of domes and minarets


----------



## tpe

hadeer992 said:


> I think the mosques represent the true Islamic architecture, which usually consist of domes and minarets


Domes are not necessary. to be sure.

And so long as there is a high enough place to perform the call to prayer, minarets too can be thought of as incidental. But as Islamic architecture evolved, minarets indeed became fixtures.

One would think that water was necessary for the required ablutions. But ablution using sand is permissible. Still, fountains also became a fixture.

Lastly, the requirement of a mihrab simply came about with the need for proper orientation.


----------



## minba

Muttie said:


> Then again, these kind of topics tend to pop-up during these days when anti-islamism is abundant.


:bash: anti-islamism?, get over your self my friend. You guys started those trouble yourselves. Don't be such a hater man :chill: Keep the topic clean and sober.


----------



## end2012

tpe said:


> Domes are not necessary. to be sure.
> 
> And so long as there is a high enough place to perform the call to prayer, minarets too can be thought of as incidental. But as Islamic architecture evolved, minarets indeed became fixtures.
> 
> One would think that water was necessary for the required ablutions. But ablution using sand is permissible. Still, fountains also became a fixture.
> 
> Lastly, the requirement of a mihrab simply came about with the need for proper orientation.


Still people say...arch is "Islamic", dome is "Islamic'....everything is Islamic. Very imperialistic.... 

Maybe "Christian architecture" exist but usually term Baroque, Gothic, Classical etc. is being used that is appropriate. Nobody claim that everything belong to Christianity religion because such technique and style used in secular building and some other religion also.


----------



## desertpunk

No. There is adaptive Mughal architecture that may be called "Islamic" by some. Not that it's a big deal either way...


----------



## tpe

Although Mughal incorporates art and architecture derived from the subcontinent and even Europe, it is largely Persianate, and above all else, Timurid. 

After all, Babur claimed to be the heir of the Timurid hemogeny, and, by ultimate deduction, to the great Chinghiz Khan himself.


----------



## KWT

minba said:


> :bash: anti-islamism?, get over your self my friend. *You guys* started those trouble yourselves. Don't be such a hater man :chill: Keep the topic clean and sober.



LOL. Look at the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## end2012

Mughal architecture also very diversified. The open pillar hall type palace is derived from the Indian template of pillar halls (thou it exist in other cultures also). Maybe the style of Gates, Mosques, Tombs is mostly Persian but Emperor Akbar built his capital Fatehpur Sikri in Hindu (Gujarat) -style carving and construction technique. So it is different in different period. The Mughal pavilion type is derived from Bengal-type pavilion and so on...


----------



## Adrian12345Lugo

I dont see what the fuss is, most styles of architecture derive from older styles of architecture.


----------



## tpe

end2012 said:


> Mughal architecture also very diversified. The open pillar hall type palace is derived from the Indian template of pillar halls (thou it exist in other cultures also). Maybe the style of Gates, Mosques, Tombs is mostly Persian but Emperor Akbar built his capital Fatehpur Sikri in Hindu-style carving and construction technique. So it is different in different period.


The Court of Akbar was very cosmopolitan. And many devout moslems would also claim: heterodox. He encouraged debate among the religions -- the Jesuits took particular care to be properly represented at his court, as did the Buddhists and the Hindu religions.

The art is similarly heterodox. Mughal painting in the court of Akbar showed heavy influence in European modeling -- certainly very different from the more brilliant and decorative but flatter Persian miniature painting of the period. The art and architecture was certainly influenced by the subcontinent, as well as by persian and european models and even Chinese (as in the so-called Mughal style of Jade carving.)


----------



## KWT

end2012 said:


> Still people say...arch is "Islamic", dome is "Islamic'....everything is Islamic. Very imperialistic....
> 
> Maybe "Christian architecture" exist but usually term Baroque, Gothic, Classical etc. is being used that is appropriate. Nobody claim that everything belong to Christianity religion because such technique and style used in secular building and some other religion also.


There are different types of Islamic architecture too! Abbassid, Mamluke, Umayyad, Ayyubid, Fatimid, Safavid, Ottoman, Seljuk, Mughal, Andalucian and so on (did you know that? Or do you just say things without knowing what you're talking about?), and they are references, influences and continuations of each other, not seperate entities that have nothing to do with each other, and guess what the common denominator is?....

...It's Islam.

I understand that the terminology is somewhat problematic, but so is the term "Western" architecture, it's just the nature of naming things. But to deny an entire artistic culture and claim it as your own (our friend Cyrus here, and many other Iranians, hypothesises that all "Islamic" architecture is actually Sassanian - LOL), it just reaks of an inferiority complex and malicious revisionism.


----------



## end2012

I think tpe is expert and he is also sincere. KWT you are become defensive and accusative.

Personally, I think architecture should not be named as per dominant religion, but other criteria should use. Anyway, I think I am convinced.

Maybe Cyrus is Persian nationalist but he is correct also. Persian influence is dominant in so-called Islamic architecture so it is unfair to not recognize. Without Islam Persian architecture would be on same lines, maybe bit different for purpose sake. Islam mosque design was very different before conquest of Persia and Anatolia.


----------



## KWT

Adrian12345Lugo said:


> I dont see what the fuss is, most styles of architecture derive from older styles of architecture.


I know, _seriously_. But that's of no interest to the person who started this poll.


----------



## idiamindada

KWT said:


> I think Cyrus thinks this is a rhetorical question, so I'm not sure why he's even bothering to ask people if he thinks he knows the answer. Unless this is just a thinly veiled pretext to convey obvious contemptuous sentiments. Against whom does he harbor this contempt? I can only take a wild guess LOL.
> 
> Cyrus, do you propose we change the name from Islamic architecture to Persian architecture because some regions of the Abbassid Empire (mainly Iran and modern-day Iraq) had Sassanian influences? Should we change the name of Roman, Baroque and Renaissance architecture to Greek architecture? Because, you know, they borrowed a lot more from Greece than "Islamic" architecture did from the Sassanians. Actually the Greeks borrowed from even earlier civilizations and developed their own unique architecture. This sort of thing happens everywhere, but nobody makes a big deal out of it. Only when it comes to Islamic architecture do people like you start saying preposterous things like (I'm paraphrasing here) "Islamic architecture doesn't exist...everything is Persian" or some other moron says "the Taj Mahal is Italian and Hindu". Ridiculous.
> 
> If you have a problem with the nomenclature, then give us an alternative (please don't say Persian, because you're gonna put your foot in your mouth). But obviously you don't give a shit about that because by posting this thread you think you're doing some sort of "service" to Persian culture.


100% agree with you.

i can see a moron here too. he has 0 knowledge in architecture yet still wanna argue about it. shameful.

if someone don't know any particular subject, one must either:

1. Ask politely what it is; or
2. Shut up!


----------



## KWT

end2012 said:


> I think tpe is expert and he is also sincere. KWT you are become defensive and accusative.
> 
> Personally, I think architecture should not be named as per dominant religion, but other criteria should use. Anyway, I think I am convinced.
> 
> Maybe Cyrus is Persian nationalist but he is correct also. Persian influence is dominant in so-called Islamic architecture so it is unfair to not recognize. Without Islam Persian architecture would be on same lines, maybe bit different for purpose sake.


Nobody here is saying that there are no Sassanian influences in Islamic architecture.


----------



## Cyrus

Unfortunately ignorant people, especially biased religionists, exist everywhere, they usually consider their own beliefs as the most important things in the world and ignore other facts, the fact is that architecture is a social art which can be influenced by many factors like climate, geography, culture and of course religion, so we can talk about the architecture of a society, like Moroccan architecture, but not Warm architecture, Desert architecture, Arabic-speaking architecture and Islamic architecture, because there are different architectures in the societies of warm climate, desert, Arabic-speaking and Islamic regions.


----------



## Muttie

Cyrus said:


> Unfortunately ignorant people, especially biased religionists, exist everywhere, they usually consider their own beliefs as the most important things in the world and ignore other facts, the fact is that architecture is a social art which can be influenced by many factors like climate, geography, culture and of course religion, so we can talk about the architecture of a society, like Moroccan architecture, but not Warm architecture, Desert architecture, Arabic-speaking architecture and Islamic architecture, because there are different architectures in the societies of warm climate, desert, Arabic-speaking and Islamic regions.


You use some weird reasons to claim Islamic Architecture does not exist. Just like you said we are able to speak about Islamic societies. Hence it is possible to speak about Islamic Architecture. Islamic societies are different from region to region, but this does not mean there cant be Islamic architecture. It simply means that just like with the Islamic societies, the Islamic architecture will be different. The word Islamic architecture features as an umbrella. Within Islamic architecture there is a wide range - Moorish to Persian of architecture. The only condition is that the architecture has been created, invented or extremely modified within an Islamic society - and has therefore suffered a lot of influence from Islamic culture. 

Actually Wikipedia explains it pretty well:

_Islamic architecture encompasses a wide range of both secular and religious styles from the foundation of Islam to the present day, influencing the design and construction of buildings and structures in Islamic culture._

On that page you will see a small list of types of architecture within the Islamic civilizations:

_Persian architecture
Azerbaijani architecture
Moorish architecture
Turkistan (Timurid) architecture
Ottoman Turkish architecture
Fatimid architecture
Mamluk architecture
Islamic (Mughal) architecture
Sino-Islamic architecture
Sahelian-Islamic architecture
Somali-Islamic architecture_


Although the architecture will be different from society to society, throughout the Islamic civilizations you will find architectural traits that are the same in nearly every (Islamic) society:

_Distinguishing motifs of Islamic architecture have always been ordered repetition, radiating structures, and rhythmic, metric patterns. In this respect, fractal geometry has been a key utility, especially for mosques and palaces. Other significant features employed as motifs include columns, piers and arches, organized and interwoven with alternating sequences of niches and colonnettes.[_

As someone else already said before in this thread (which you seem to ignore) most styles of architecture derive from older styles of architecture. As is also the case in most of the Islamic architecture. It's the combination and refinement of these other styles which makes Islamic architecture different. 

The best example of Islamic architecture is in my opinion the Moorish architecture which refined the Arab architecture during the rule of the Islamic caliphate. Note that within the Moorish architecture the mosques do not have multiple minarettes and dont have a dome.


----------



## Cyrus

That is nonsense, Persian architecture is Persian architecture, not Islamic architecture, if there is Islamic architecture then there should be also Christian architecture, Zoroastrian architecture, atheist architecture, ... in fact I don't know what the direct relation between religion and architecture is! Do Quran and other religious books of Islam talk about the methods of architecture?!! I think the problem is "Ummah", some Muslims fool themselves into believing this imaginary concept, it is a clear that Muslims are among the most diverse peoples and societies in the world, even there are big differences between religious beliefs of Muslims, such as Sunni, Shia, Shafii, Wahaabi, Hanafi, Hanbali, Ismaili, Zaidiya, Maliki, ...


----------



## brightside.

Cyrus said:


> Islam is the name of a religion and Muslims from Indonesia to Morocco are followers of this religion, after the conquest of Persia, most of Zoroastrian domed fire-temples were converted to mosques and they became the prototype of early Islamic mosques, also Zoroastrian fire-towers which are called Minaret in Arabic, from the root نار (Nar) "fire", were also used as Islamic buildings. You can see Mihrab, the Persian name of Mithraeum, in the mosques too. Other types of mosques, like the ones in Istanbul, were also adopted from the architecture of other peoples, so I believe there is no Islamic architecture, what do you think?


Everything any human being has ever built since we started drawing pictures in caves has had something to do with other people, so I don't get your point. Islamic architecture is unique and even if there are elements of other cultures in there, it has still lots of unique elements in it, it is just as distinct as Christian influenced architecture.


----------



## guy4versa4

islamic architecture is not a religion moron! its a style.....what wrong with u cyrus..islamic architecture doesnt mean islamic religion architecture..islamic architecture comes from country that have been rules by islamic..its and influance, its shouldnt be about alquran or Prophet,u need to realize,if islam do not conquer persian,there be no persian architecture.....u need to learn more about architecture...dont fool your self


----------



## guy4versa4

Islamic architecture encompasses a wide range of both secular and religious styles from the foundation of Islam to the present day, influencing the design and construction of buildings and structures in Islamic culture

A specifically recognisable Islamic architectural style emerged soon after Muhammad's time, developing from localized adaptations of Egyptian, Persian/Sassanid and Greek Byzantine models, the Germanic Visigoths in Spain also made a big contribution to Islamic architecture They invented the Horseshoe arch in Spain and used them as one of their main architectural features, After the moorish invasion of spain in 711 AD the form was taken by the Ummayyads who accentuated the curvature of the horseshoe. An early example of Islamic architecture may be identified as early as 691 AD with the completion of the Dome of the Rock (Qubbat al-Sakhrah) in Jerusalem. It featured interior vaulted spaces, a circular dome, and the use of stylized repeating decorative patterns (arabesque).-wikipedia


----------



## Olive touch

Also here are some modern mosques which are part of the Islamic 
architectures and it is influenced by old architectures with a modern twist:

In Jeddah, Saudi Arabia














































In Sudan










In Kuwait


----------



## Muttie

Cyrus said:


> I believe calling Persian, Byzantine and other architectures as Islamic architecture, is an insult to them, the architecture of Muslims can be seen in those tents of the Arabs in the desert, of course Arab tents were set up before Islam too but it is true that Muslims spread them to some other regions.


You totally ignore the alteration of these styles. Second, this response backs up my earlier remark about anti-Islamic sentiments. Thanks for proving my point. 

Third Islamic architecture is an umbrella, it features styles from different Islamic civilizations. Thats why its called Islamic architecture. Its also called "Islamic architecture" because it often contains some distinct features, like caligraphy and returning patterns.










This kind of style does not only apply to old buildings. Islamic architecture has evolved (just like any form of architecture) and has a modern touch these days. Still the distinct features are there: returning patterns etc. :











Marrakech airport 2 by Adam Fowler, on Flickr


----------



## Cyrus

tpe said:


> So do you agree that the mihrab is an architectural feature unique to Islam, and is not seen in Christian or Buddhist buildings?
> 
> Still not getting it?


You really don't know what Persian word *Mihr* (Old Persian Mithra) mean and who were Mihri (Mithraist)?!! What was the religion of Romans before Christianity? Do you know Parthians and about their religion? Do you know Mihrdad (Mithradates) the Great?

You can read here about an ancient Parthian Mihrab in Maraghe, northwest of Iran: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Archaeology/Ashkanian/verjuy_mithra_temple.htm










Altar or Mehrab (Mithraium) is a place which in Pre-Islamic Iran and Islamic period (Mihrab) is considered to be a window opening to God and the reality of this world. Also two braziers were placed on each side of the altar and statues were put around it. Between the altar and the entrance door, there was a corridor like a hall and if the temple was built in the Roman style, there were also long platforms on each side. Followers of Mithraism usually sat on these platforms and tables and the blessed food were placed in front of them.

More info about Mithraeum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraeum


----------



## tpe

Are you saying that a mihrab is equivalent to a Mithraic altar? 

If so, then please name me ONE Mithraeum that was intentionally oriented towards MECCA (as is the case with all mihrabs).

Answer: there are NONE. Do not be ridiculous.

Moral of the story: do not confuse Etymology with Architecture.

Just because "Paradise" is derived for the Persian word for Garden does not mean that Heaven is LITERALLY a Persian Garden!





Cyrus said:


> You really don't know what Persian word *Mihr* (Old Persian Mithra) mean and who were Mihri (Mithraist)?!! What was the religion of Romans before Christianity? Do you know Parthians and about their religion? Do you know Mihrdad (Mithradates) the Great?
> 
> You can read here about an ancient Parthian Mihrab in Maraghe, northwest of Iran: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Archaeology/Ashkanian/verjuy_mithra_temple.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Altar or Mehrab (Mithraium) is a place which in Pre-Islamic Iran and Islamic period (Mihrab) is considered to be a window opening to God and the reality of this world. Also two braziers were placed on each side of the altar and statues were put around it. Between the altar and the entrance door, there was a corridor like a hall and if the temple was built in the Roman style, there were also long platforms on each side. Followers of Mithraism usually sat on these platforms and tables and the blessed food were placed in front of them.
> 
> More info about Mithraeum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraeum


----------



## guy4versa4

i really like islamic architecture..it like from heaven!some of good islamic architecture in malaysia
*modern islamic architecture*

















































*tradition islamic architecture*


----------



## jb_nl

There is very beautifull architecture in countries with an islamic background. And islam has influenced some religious buildings by their functions: like the waqf (charity, with fountains and schools) system and that mosques are built in the direction of mecca and have some aspects like the mihrab etc. 

But as said, it is as impossible to say that a skyscraper in Rotterdam is christian or atheistic in essence like qasr il-3adam would be an islamic building. Yes it was built in an islamic area, so it's all about naming! Mostly we call something islamic when it was built in a region of which the majority is islamic or in a period in which it was islamic or when it was built by islamic craftsman. So that is what we mostly indicate by "islamic". But as said, objectively looking at most buildings (with the exception of some patterns, like mosque functions and waqf systems that are almost the same everywhere), there is nothing specificly islamic about it. A lot has been built or decorated by Byzantinian craftsmen (both in Syria, Palestina and Spain) in their own style, and as said, a lot of elements, like a high tower (minaret, originally same function as a church tower, to recognize it by it's elevation), decoration styles etc. have been lend from societies before islam came over there of have been taken over from others and evoled during some islamic empires and spread. Just like mostly with history, there are some changes in history, but a lot remains the same or gets adopted by the new dynasties, just the same was the case with the architectural styles the empires copied from their preceders when islamic rulers got in power.


So shortly said: if you see islamic architecture als architecture created in what we seem to call the islamic world and a mixture of styles in different areas during islamic empires, then yes, there is some kind of islamic architecture, even though it is very diverse. But if you would like a building in principle islamic atheistic or christian, then no, there isn't. A building doesn't have a religion, only the people who use it or made it.


----------



## Muttie

jb_nl said:


> There is very beautifull architecture in countries with an islamic background. And islam has influenced some religious buildings by their functions: like the waqf (charity, with fountains and schools) system and that mosques are built in the direction of mecca and have some aspects like the mihrab etc.
> 
> But as said, it is as impossible to say that a skyscraper in Rotterdam is christian or atheistic in essence like qasr il-3adam would be an islamic building. Yes it was built in an islamic area, so it's all about naming! Mostly we call something islamic when it was built in a region of which the majority is islamic or in a period in which it was islamic or when it was built by islamic craftsman. So that is what we mostly indicate by "islamic". But as said, objectively looking at most buildings (with the exception of some patterns, like mosque functions and waqf systems that are almost the same everywhere), there is nothing specificly islamic about it. A lot has been built or decorated by Byzantinian craftsmen (both in Syria, Palestina and Spain) in their own style, and as said, a lot of elements, like a high tower (minaret, originally same function as a church tower, to recognize it by it's elevation), decoration styles etc. have been lend from societies before islam came over there of have been taken over from others and evoled during some islamic empires and spread. Just like mostly with history, there are some changes in history, but a lot remains the same or gets adopted by the new dynasties, just the same was the case with the architectural styles the empires copied from their preceders when islamic rulers got in power.
> 
> 
> So shortly said: if you see islamic architecture als architecture created in what we seem to call the islamic world and a mixture of styles in different areas during islamic empires, then yes, there is some kind of islamic architecture, even though it is very diverse. But if you would like a building in principle islamic atheistic or christian, then no, there isn't. A building doesn't have a religion, only the people who use it or made it.



In that case, even "Persian, Moroccan or Dutch" architecture is something which does not exist. A building does not have a nationality. Architecture is always man-made.


----------



## jb_nl

True, even between cities like Rotterdam and Amsterdam you can see different styles, because architecture is made by men and like men very organic and shifting. But just as with languages and how people look like: the closer things are to eachother the more they look like each other, while in isolated areas a distinct style (/language/cultural features, like on islands) may develop more easily. So just as the architecture in the south of Spain and Oujda, Tanja and Rabat look more like each other than the architecture of Tanja resembles that of Istanbul while Istanbul has much more in common with eastern European styles. Just like people: it's one big mix, and the closer to eachother, the more often they look more like each other.


----------



## Cyrus

There are no Islamic house, bridge, market, fortress, ..., there are a few Islamic buildings, like mosque and minaret, other religions have also some religious buildings, these buildings have some elements but are built in defferent architectural styles, and this architecture doesn't relate to just religion, it depends on the geographic location, the climate of the region, the culture of people who build them, and many other things, why you can't understand it?!!


----------



## WaelJabir

Actually I live in Sharjah, UAE and most of the buildings here are built on Islamic architecture.


Sharjah Municipality Building






















Sharjah Souq (Market)










Sharjah Airport









Sharjah University










Even street lights


----------



## guy4versa4

yup..there are islamic architercture house,islamic architecture bridge and bla..bla..bla..what are u just list is type of building-house,tower bidge,fortress,mosque and also minaret.u still blind,thay why u cant identify type of building,style of building.islamic architecture exist..not just in mosque or minaret only..nowaday we can see islamic style in house,castle,bridge(in my photo list),skyscraper also have islamic style..first u need to seperate between islam religion and islamic world.its difrent,islamic world is consist of two elemant secular and religion..


----------



## WaelJabir

Also, this is a telecommunication company's HQ in Khartoum, Sudan.


----------



## swerveut

Cyrus said:


> You really don't know what Persian word *Mihr* (Old Persian Mithra) mean and who were Mihri (Mithraist)?!! What was the religion of Romans before Christianity? Do you know Parthians and about their religion? Do you know Mihrdad (Mithradates) the Great?
> 
> You can read here about an ancient Parthian Mihrab in Maraghe, northwest of Iran: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Archaeology/Ashkanian/verjuy_mithra_temple.htm
> 
> 
> Altar or Mehrab (Mithraium) is a place which in Pre-Islamic Iran and Islamic period (Mihrab) is considered to be a window opening to God and the reality of this world. Also two braziers were placed on each side of the altar and statues were put around it. Between the altar and the entrance door, there was a corridor like a hall and if the temple was built in the Roman style, there were also long platforms on each side. Followers of Mithraism usually sat on these platforms and tables and the blessed food were placed in front of them.
> 
> More info about Mithraeum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraeum


You make it sound like all architecture came from Persia. I also know the persian word "Ab" which means water. So Mihr-ab from your concoction is Mithra's water. :nuts:

Dude, get over your self! Not everything has a relation to Persia. hno:
Mihrab is an Arabic word with Arabic etymology. It has nothing at all to do with Mitharium or what not. It doesnt even look like it!! If you look at wikipedia, it says this:
"The word mihrab originally had a non-religious meaning and simply denoted a special room in a house; a throne room in a palace,"

And lets say even if it was a Mitrhaist who made the first Mihrab. Does it matter? Not at all. It was in Islamic architecture and its adaptation to the mosque that made this architectural feature reach its zenith in terms of design and variation of forms. Really. :tongue3:


----------



## end2012

Christian Market, Buddhist Bridge, Jewish House..  Sounds stupid? Yes?

But Islamic Market. Okay! Islamic street lamp, Okay! Islamic footpath, Okay! All things belong to Islam!


----------



## swerveut

nomarandlee said:


> Saying that Mohammad commanded his fighters to fight "like hippies" is deeply patronizing and historically insulting among other fallacies in the article which I can't be arsed to go into.


Hippies here implies that they were ahead of time in their values and tolerance. I am a Muslim and I totally do not find that insulting. Rather, it is a complement. 

Cheers.


----------



## swerveut

end2012 said:


> Christian Market, Buddhist Bridge, Jewish House..  Sounds stupid? Yes?
> 
> But Islamic Market. Okay! Islamic street lamp, Okay! Islamic footpath, Okay! All things belong to Islam!


Wow! I have never heard of those either! Whoever made those up must be totally :nuts:

Only though, if something is inspired by Islamic architectural forms or styles developed as a result of Islamic influence, it is only fair to call it Islamic architecture.


----------



## Anabase

end2012 said:


> Christian Market, Buddhist Bridge, Jewish House..  Sounds stupid? Yes?
> 
> But Islamic Market. Okay! Islamic street lamp, Okay! Islamic footpath, Okay! All things belong to Islam!


Once again, Islam is not a religion like the others, it's also a culture. You'll never hear someone speaking about a christian finance, but there is an islamic one.


----------



## end2012

You have never heard? It is in this thread. See!


----------



## Anabase

end2012 said:


> You have never heard? It is in this thread. See!


Christian finance, Christian bank, Buddhist economics? Where?


----------



## nomarandlee

swerveut said:


> Hippies here implies that they were ahead of time in their values and tolerance. I am a Muslim and I totally do not find that insulting. Rather, it is a complement.
> 
> Cheers.


Of course it would appeal to you because its a contrived historical whitewash! 

That army was about as peace loving and "tolerant" as the Confederate army was progressive in racial acceptance.


----------



## guy4versa4

^^that we call ISLAMIC ARCHITECTURE^^


----------



## Turknology

Just because a certain form of architecture exists in a country that happens to be populated by Muslims, why suddenly do some people want to call it Islamic architecture.

There is Byzantine architecture (which is the basis of design for most major Ottoman mosques), Gothic architecture, Baroque Architecture, classical/neo-classical, etc, etc Architecture in Europe and many churches built in one style or the other but no one lumps them all together and calls them Christian architecture.

So why the need to say Islamic architecture instead of Persian, Seljuck, Ottoman, Mamluk, etc?

The Ortaköy Mosque built in the neo-baroque style:










so just because this is a mosque can it no longer be classified as neo-baroque but must be classified as "Islamic architecture"?

So, no, there is no such thing as Islamic architecture.


----------



## guy4versa4

Turknology said:


> Just because a certain form of architecture exists in a country that happens to be populated by Muslims,


india is not major islamic,also thailand and singapore..but they still have islamic style building..also court,office building theater and shopping mall have islamic style..


----------



## guy4versa4

there also mosque in china architecture,so theres not only building related with islam have this kind of style...there are church like islamic building.they are skyscraper like islamic building,there are mosque like chinese building..its can be anything..so that why its should call islamic architecture,becoz it can be anything ......not just related with religion...


----------



## Turknology

but why use the term Islamic architecture instead of what specific style it is built in?

again refer to my statement about the neo-baroque style mosque, why not just call it neo-baroque, or neo-baroque ottoman (to be more specific) instead of Islamic?


----------



## guy4versa4

firstly
1-because it a mosque(religion)
2-build in order by islamic person Ottoman sultan Abdülmecid
3-build in islamic era(islam culture)
4-Within the mosque hang several examples of Islamic calligraphy(not all neo baroque architecture has calligraphy ..

and its still can be call neo baroque architecture same with moghul persian timurid and bla..bla bla.....islamic architecture is on other categary,its more big aspect


----------



## Turknology

no one calls the Kölner Dom an example of Christian architecture

care to explain what the difference is?


----------



## guy4versa4

i dont know..its not my problem,i ve never learn christianity,im muslim..study in art design-we've learn islamic art-metalwork,architecture,textile,ceramic and everything...maybe because christian people don want to mixed religion and art...


----------



## Turknology

^^

obviously because they are totally different subjects. religion can influence art architecture etc but that doesn't mean that they should be treated as a sub-genre of that religion.


----------



## guy4versa4

Turknology said:


> ^^
> 
> obviously because they are totally different subjects. religion can influence art architecture etc but that doesn't mean that they should be treated as a sub-genre of that religion.


islam that we've learn is not just about art in religion..its more to culture,a area and age before islam religion comes..more to secular..like animal gryphin statue,they also have tomb and human figure which probhit is islam religion but it is still in islam world..


----------



## swerveut

Cyrus said:


> We will appreciate if you also remove your ugly minarets from Hagia Sophia and other pre-Islamic buildings to see the real beauty of these architectural treasures.


Its because Constantinople was CONQUERED by the Muslims. Just like the Grand mosque of Cordoba is now a cathedral! The sooner you accept this, the better it will be for your xenophobia and insecurity. 

By the way, more great Islamic Moorish architecture:


----------



## swerveut

Turknology said:


> Just because a certain form of architecture exists in a country that happens to be populated by Muslims, why suddenly do some people want to call it Islamic architecture.
> 
> There is Byzantine architecture (which is the basis of design for most major Ottoman mosques), Gothic architecture, Baroque Architecture, classical/neo-classical, etc, etc Architecture in Europe and many churches built in one style or the other but no one lumps them all together and calls them Christian architecture.
> 
> So why the need to say Islamic architecture instead of Persian, Seljuck, Ottoman, Mamluk, etc?
> 
> The Ortaköy Mosque built in the neo-baroque style:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so just because this is a mosque can it no longer be classified as neo-baroque but must be classified as "Islamic architecture"?
> 
> So, no, there is no such thing as Islamic architecture.


I think you are starting the debate all over again. Please read the previous pages in this thread.


----------



## swerveut

Moving to *Morocco*:


----------



## swerveut

*SEE MANY MANY MORE EXAMPLES IN THIS THREAD*



.


----------



## yusef

Islamic architecture is my favorite. The pics are amazing!


----------



## Cyrus

Islamic Bidekhem in Isfahan (for those ignorants):










Non-Islamic Bidekhem Cathedral in Isfahan:


----------



## Olive touch

Cyrus said:


> Islamic Bidekhem in Isfahan (for those ignorants)....


You started a very mature civilized thread and unfortunately it is about to end 
in a rude way because you are not convinced. You are totally free but 
never accused others for being ignorant to prove your point.


----------



## guy4versa4

go school and learn more cyrus..


----------



## Cyrus

Olive touch said:


> You started a very mature civilized thread and unfortunately it is about to end
> in a rude way because you are not convinced. You are totally free but
> never accused others for being ignorant to prove your point.


Ignorant is someone who does not know something, I said "those ignorants" and I refered to those who don't know this church is of Persian architecture, not Islamic architecture. What do you call someone who doesn't know a church can't be an Islamic building?


----------



## swerveut

^^ By the way, wasn't this church made by the Safavids who wanted to encourage a minority (Armenian christians?) to move into Esfahan? 

And Safavids were the masters of Iranian Islamic architecture. They just regurgitated the same architecture for the church and made some icons / pictures in it so it looks more like a church. 

Totally unconvinced. This church is merely following norms established through Islamization of Iranian architecture so that it can fit into the cultural mileu. Not the other way around. Sorry.

By the way why not post pics of Chehel Sotoon (or was it some other palace?) that also shows whole scenes of Safavid court life? That also has pictures of people. 

I think you are really confused. Persian architecture got heavily islamized since more than 90% of the Persians converted to Islam. You can notice that Islamization by looking at the florid and repetitive geometric designs. However the same / similar architecture is used for a variety of purposes - be it secular in palaces where more pictures are allowed, or in mosques where it is strictly religious. However, the influence of Islam is indelible.


----------



## Adrian12345Lugo

Is Persian Architectue 100% original?


----------



## Koobideh

swerveut said:


> ^^ By the way, wasn't this church made by the Safavids who wanted to encourage a minority (Armenian christians?) to move into Esfahan?
> 
> And Safavids were the masters of Iranian Islamic architecture. They just regurgitated the same architecture for the church and made some icons / pictures in it so it looks more like a church.
> 
> Totally unconvinced. This church is merely following norms established through Islamization of Iranian architecture so that it can fit into the cultural mileu. Not the other way around. Sorry.
> 
> By the way why not post pics of Chehel Sotoon (or was it some other palace?) that also shows whole scenes of Safavid court life? That also has pictures of people.
> 
> I think you are really confused. *Persian architecture got heavily islamized* since more than 90% of the Persians converted to Islam. You can notice that Islamization by looking at the florid and repetitive geometric designs. However the same / similar architecture is used for a variety of purposes - be it secular in palaces where more pictures are allowed, or in mosques where it is strictly religious. However, the influence of Islam is indelible.


What do you mean Persian architecture got heavily Islamized? Persian architecture from the Islamic times are a continuation of pre-Islamic Persian architecture. How could Persian architecture have been Islamized when the people who brought Islam to Iran didn't even have their own architecture, etc? It was more the other way round, that because of the Arab invasion of Iran, it meant that the 'Islamic architecture' was heavily influenced by Persian designs, and that is well known that the Arabs borrowed many aspects of the Sassanid Persian culture, not just their architecture, but also their style of administration, traditions and lifestyles. Iran was the more advanced culture at the time Islam was spreading everywhere, so it is only natural that Iran would have been the most culturally influential.


----------



## KWT

Turknology said:


> Just because a certain form of architecture exists in a country that happens to be populated by Muslims, why suddenly do some people want to call it Islamic architecture.
> 
> There is Byzantine architecture (which is the basis of design for most major Ottoman mosques), Gothic architecture, Baroque Architecture, classical/neo-classical, etc, etc Architecture in Europe and many churches built in one style or the other but no one lumps them all together and calls them Christian architecture.
> 
> So why the need to say Islamic architecture* instead of* Persian, Seljuck, Ottoman, Mamluk, etc?
> 
> The Ortaköy Mosque built in the neo-baroque style:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so just because this is a mosque can it no longer be classified as neo-baroque but must be classified as "Islamic architecture"?
> 
> So, no, there is no such thing as Islamic architecture.


Who said that?

The term "Islamic Architecture" is generally used in architectural history as a loose umbrella term, incorporating the styles you mentioned.

Anyway, I don't think nomenclature is Cyrus's concern at all. He has other all too familiar concerns that he wants to b*tch about.


----------



## KWT

Some things get named and that name sticks, justifiably or not. That's just the nature of the game.

When the Arabs built and designed the buildings of Norman Sicily or the Mudejar buildings in Christian Spain, nobody called it Arab or Islamic architecture, and nobody is saying that they should.

And for those of you saying that Arabs didn't have an architecture before Islam....GO READ A BOOK ALREADY!


----------



## swerveut

Koobideh said:


> What do you mean Persian architecture got heavily Islamized? Persian architecture from the Islamic times are a continuation of pre-Islamic Persian architecture. How could Persian architecture have been Islamized when the people who brought Islam to Iran didn't even have their own architecture, etc? It was more the other way round, that because of the Arab invasion of Iran, it meant that the 'Islamic architecture' was heavily influenced by Persian designs, and that is well known that the Arabs borrowed many aspects of the Sassanid Persian culture, not just their architecture, but also their style of administration, traditions and lifestyles. Iran was the more advanced culture at the time Islam was spreading everywhere, so it is only natural that Iran would have been the most culturally influential.


Post # 95 gives some elements that show an influence of Islam on architecture. Islam was the main philosophy which led to the perpetuation and promotion of these elements (as opposed to any other ones) and resulted in their development reaching a zenith. I am sure Iranian architecture post-Islam was created by Iranians themselves and not Arabs. So why this issue with Arabs having or not having an architecture earlier? (even though there were quite a lot of building traditions in existence on the Arabian peninsula before) However, whatever the Iranians created post Islam was heavily influenced by Islamic philosophy. So for example, whereas Pasargad's gardens had been wiped off the planet a LONG time ago, the Islamic form of the garden, the Chahar Bagh was developed and revived - drawing heavily from the imagery of four streams of paradise. 

And the main trend this thread is taking that only Persian architecture was the original one in the world, it was not. Ctesiphon's architecture and the Sassanid's themselves borrowed heavily from main Middle Eastern architectural themes of Mesopotamia. Only the Iwan can be attributed to them as a distinct form. The iconic architecture of the Soltaniyeh was in fact comissioned by a Turkic / Mongolian person, and Safavids themselves were Turkic. Conclusion again - no architecture developed in isolation. Only the main streams of its influence can be used to categorize it properly.


----------



## Turknology

And Christian philosophy also influenced architecture (for example domes representing heaven etc) but there is no term called Christian architecture.

I am aware that some want to just debase Islamic civilisations, yet that doesn't mean that everything related to an islamically influenced civilisation most have the adjective "Islamic" attached to it.


----------



## KWT

swerveut said:


> Post # 95 gives some elements that show an influence of Islam on architecture. Islam was the main philosophy which led to the perpetuation and promotion of these elements (as opposed to any other ones) and resulted in their development reaching a zenith. I am sure Iranian architecture post-Islam was created by Iranians themselves and not Arabs. So why this issue with Arabs having or not having an architecture earlier? (even though there were quite a lot of building traditions in existence on the Arabian peninsula before) However, whatever the Iranians created post Islam was heavily influenced by Islamic philosophy. So for example, whereas Pasargad's gardens had been wiped off the planet a LONG time ago, the Islamic form of the garden, the Chahar Bagh was developed and revived - drawing heavily from the imagery of four streams of paradise.
> 
> And the main trend this thread is taking that only Persian architecture was the original one in the world, it was not. Ctesiphon's architecture and the Sassanid's themselves borrowed heavily from main Middle Eastern architectural themes of Mesopotamia. Only the Iwan can be attributed to them as a distinct form. The iconic architecture of the Soltaniyeh was in fact comissioned by a Turkic / Mongolian person, and Safavids themselves were Turkic. *Conclusion again - no architecture developed in isolation. Only the main streams of its influence can be used to categorize it properly*.


I guess this can't be repeated enough, huh?


----------



## KWT

Turknology said:


> And Christian philosophy also influenced architecture (for example domes representing heaven etc) but there is no term called Christian architecture.
> 
> I am aware that some want to just debase Islamic civilisations, yet that doesn't mean that everything related to an islamically influenced civilisation most have the adjective "Islamic" attached to it.


Fine, so what do you suggest as an alternative term? Because there is a link of architectural and decorative themes that connects buildings from central Asia to southern Europe (which only exist because of the rise of the original Islamic Caliphates), and to break that link and say there is no common thread, that these styles are coincidental and completely unrelated is truly unjust in my opinion.


----------



## KWT

swerveut said:


> Its because Constantinople was CONQUERED by the Muslims. Just like the Grand mosque of Cordoba is now a cathedral! The sooner you accept this, the better it will be for your xenophobia and insecurity.
> 
> By the way, more great Islamic Moorish architecture:


Cyrus, please reply. Also, when you say "when *you* remove *your* ugly minarets", who are you referring to specifically?! LOL


----------



## Cyrus

As you read about Cathedral–Mosque of Córdoba: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral–Mosque_of_Córdoba It was: 

1. Pagan Temple
2. Visigothic Christian church
3. Moorish Mosque
4. Roman Catholic church

Anyway you certainly know about the Moorish history.


----------



## Cyrus

Adrian12345Lugo said:


> Is Persian Architectue 100% original?


Persian architecture has a long history, no one can deny the influences of other architectural styles, especially ancient Elamite, Assyrian, Urartian, ... on it, this architecture was developed through its long history, some things were invented and many other things were adopted from others, this is a long process, not a one time event like the appearance of Islam.


----------



## KWT

Cyrus said:


> As you read about Cathedral–Mosque of Córdoba: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral–Mosque_of_Córdoba It was:
> 
> 1. Pagan Temple
> 2. Visigothic Christian church
> 3. Moorish Mosque
> 4. Roman Catholic church
> 
> Anyway you certainly know about the Moorish history.


First of all, this is a quote from your own link: "the Umayyad Moors at first converted the building into a mosque, *and then built a new mosque on the site*." 

Second of all, are you seriously insinuating, by posting that map, that Moorish architecture was actually "invented" by Persians?!?!


----------



## swerveut

Turknology said:


> And Christian philosophy also influenced architecture (for example domes representing heaven etc) but there is no term called Christian architecture.


Even though the dome may appear very prominently in post-renaissance and eastern christian architecture, it had already been used profusely by Romans, zoroastrians (in their fire temples - ahem, ahem), muslims (mosques all the way from ibn tulun to central asian ones), and maybe other traditions as well. And it can be seen in several different non-connected architectural streams at the same period of time in history - for example, the Soltaniyeh dome dates from early 1300's whereas the Florence cathedral's dome started in 1419. Therefore, it would be totally wrong to attribute it to a specific tradition. 

Gothic verticality, even though directly inspired from religion, was not adopted uniformly across most christian lands (unlike Islamic architectural themes)... so again you cannot call it christian architecture. Maybe calling it western christian architecture however, would not be in error. Likewise, multiple domes were used only significantly in the architecture of the eastern christian tradition - more specifically associated with the Byzantine empire. It doesnt have thematic elements that apply more or less uniformly to all christian lands. 



Cyrus said:


> As you read about Cathedral–Mosque of Córdoba: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral–Mosque_of_Córdoba It was:
> 
> 1. Pagan Temple
> 2. Visigothic Christian church
> 3. Moorish Mosque
> 4. Roman Catholic church


Wikipedia also says:
_"The site was primarily a pagan temple, then a Visigothic Christian church, before the Umayyad Moors at first converted the building into a mosque, *and then built a new mosque on the site.*"_

meaning - all torn down and built afresh. If it still had the earlier christian church layout, it would have probably looked like a latin cross. However its layout is that of a hypostyle hall with an adjoining courtyard. 



Cyrus said:


> Anyway you certainly know about the Moorish history.


If you read the wikipedia entry on this empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rustamid ), sounds like these Rustamids were Muslim... also seems like only the ruling family was Persian (not a diaspora colony). 

By the way, you are starting to sound delusional now. Better go take some pills. 



Cyrus said:


> Persian architecture has a long history, no one can deny the influences of other architectural styles, especially ancient Elamite, Assyrian, Urartian, ... on it, this architecture was developed through its long history, some things were invented and many other things were adopted from others, this is a long process, not a one time event like the appearance of Islam.


So basically according to you, Islam appeared one fine day, the next fine day all the glorious buildings you find in Islamic empires were constructed, then then the next day... poof! it was gone. Sounds like it made a pretty remarkable achivement in that short a time period! You are welcome to believe that if you want because the achievements of the earlier Islamic empires were really quite remarkable. 

Oh and we totally didnt adopt anything from others!! All of it was 100% Islamic development! (_maybe reverse psychology will help now_). :lol:


----------



## maniei

As a neutral observer, I went through the whole thread.
I had no clear answer to that question before. 

Is there something like islamic architecture?

My personal judgement now: No, there is no such thing as Islamic architecture. I say this because those who have spoken against this statement here have the better arguments!


I understand that this is a sensitive and emotional matter, but those against have had the lower hand in this thread and had to endure a lot of very low insults, and that only because they are lower in number. Thats just unfortunate. 


Thanks to Cyrus, Turknology, end2012 etc. Dont think that your efforts have gone unnoticed. Keep it up!


----------



## Triple C

guy4versa4 said:


> u need to admit the existed islamic architecture..if tajmahal is moghul,samarra mosque tower is persian..what type of architecture is this>
> http://i763.photobucket.com/albums/xx276/afiqnadzir/3806351171_70eafd7116_b.jpg
> http://i763.photobucket.com/albums/...tecture-Style-by-Helal-New-Moon-Residence.jpg
> http://i763.photobucket.com/albums/xx276/afiqnadzir/Lighthouse_tower.jpg


Post-modern Arabic architecture (doesn't matter where they're located)


----------



## swerveut

Koobideh said:


> What is wrong with the Safavids or Shia Islam? The Safavids were an advanced society.


Please see what I meant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_conversion_of_Iran_from_Sunnism_to_Shiism


----------



## Cyrus

maniei said:


> As a neutral observer, I went through the whole thread.
> I had no clear answer to that question before.
> 
> Is there something like islamic architecture?
> 
> My personal judgement now: No, there is no such thing as Islamic architecture. I say this because those who have spoken against this statement here have the better arguments!
> 
> 
> I understand that this is a sensitive and emotional matter, but those against have had the lower hand in this thread and had to endure a lot of very low insults, and that only because they are lower in number. Thats just unfortunate.
> 
> 
> Thanks to Cyrus, Turknology, end2012 etc. Dont think that your efforts have gone unnoticed. Keep it up!


You are warmly welcome!


----------



## Cyrus

Sometimes Muslims hate their own architecture, like this one:










That is the tomb of a Persian soldier who killed Umar, the second Caliph.









Hagia Sophia (You can see the names of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and Umar)


----------



## KWT

^^

I don't get it. Who hates the _architecture_ of that tomb?


----------



## guy4versa4

i love it...i think the only person hates that architecture is the person who made this tread


----------



## Muttie

I think every argument has been countered. Islamic architecture exists as an umbrella. Whether you like it or not. Again the word Islamic in Islamic architecture has nothing to do with core of the Islamic religion. 

Q.E.D.


----------



## Turknology

Muttie said:


> I think every argument has been countered. Islamic architecture exists as an umbrella. Whether you like it or not. Again the word Islamic in Islamic architecture has nothing to do with core of the Islamic religion.
> 
> Q.E.D.


how can you use a religious term to define a certain style if that style is against the core teachings of that religion?

Q.E.D.

It's like saying that the theory of evolution is christian science because Darwin was from a Christian background.


----------



## Muttie

Turknology said:


> how can you use a religious term to define a certain style if that style is against the core teachings of that religion?
> 
> Q.E.D.



Islamic is not a religious term. Islamic is a term, but theres nothing religious about it. Second, the teachings "of that religion" you are referring to are explained by people. And people tend to have different views about the teachings of "that religion". Different views means different styles.

Islamic architecture is an umbrella just like Islamic world or Islamic culture.

Q.E.D.


----------



## Turknology

Muttie said:


> Islamic is not a religious term. Islamic is a term, but theres nothing religious about it. Second, the teachings "of that religion" you are referring to are explained by people. And people tend to have different views about the teachings of "that religion". Different views means different styles.
> 
> Islamic architecture is an umbrella just like Islamic world or Islamic culture.
> 
> Q.E.D.


when you use the adjective you are placing something within the scope of that religion. There can only be Islamic theology and nothing else.


----------



## Muttie

Turknology said:


> when you use the adjective you are placing something within the scope of that religion. There can only be Islamic theology and nothing else.


Not really. It could also be referring to the beliefs or culture of the people, theres a lot within the scope of the religion but not touching the Islamic rules itself. Not the touching the theology itself. But I think you and I are not going to convince eachother about the (non) existance of this type of architecture. Luckely we all know Wikipedia is often right.


----------



## Turknology

what has wikipedia got to do with it?


----------



## tpe

Luckily, this book from the Pelican series is excerpted in Amazon. 

You can refer to the table of contents there:

http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Archi...-Ettinghausen/dp/0300088698#reader_0300088698

But more importantly, in the first part covering the Caliphate, it seeks to define what "Islamic" means. Please read this excerpted section for as far as it is given, as it also covers the anticedents of what is termed as "Islamic" art and architecture. Specifically, it makes the reader understand that "Islamic" refers to a culture and not just a religion. And as in the volume on Christian Architecture, the antecedents from pre-Islamic times are touched on. Please read this excerpted section. I would post it in its entirity on this thread if I could.

The book on Christian Architecture is actually one of the BEST books written on the subject for lay people. Note that this book is entirely devoted to ARCHITECTURE. There is a separate volume on Christian Art, but I think this volume is much better written.

It is also excerpted in Amazon, and you can see the table of contents here:

http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Byz...rsity-Pelican/dp/0300052944#reader_0300052944

You can read the section on the beginnings of Christian Architecture to as far as it is excerpted. Unfortunately, the evolution to the post-Constantinian form is not excerpted. It would have given a VERY GOOD picture of the evolution and antecedents of Christian Architecture. The rest that followed can be understood in terms of this initial phase.





Jünyus Brütüs said:


> @tpe
> Could you please inform me about what is written in the book: Islamic art and architecture 650-1250?
> 
> Is that includes the answers of following questions?
> 
> 1. Which architecture styles were born between those dates?
> 2. How the religion did influence domestic architecture?
> 3. Which parts of Quran did effect the styles of ordinary buildings?(I'm simply not talking about temples!)
> 4. What has been changed in Middle and Near East after Islam widely accepted?( by architectural perspective)
> 5. How does the Islamic influence effect today's buildings? If we accept the so-called "Islamic style" was born with Islam so all the pre-Islamic style architecture just disappeared?
> 6. Did people suddenly discover a new trend of architecture or was it just upgraded/blended version of the local styles?
> 
> Also the cover of the book highlights some questions in my mind such as;
> 
> Is a regional/local art(mostly ancient) must include some verses from Quran to be called as Islamic art or simply same patterns can be called Islamic if it's not include any Quranic verses?
> 
> I also want to learn detailed info(more or less same questions) about the book that analyze Early Christian and Byzantine architecture.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> All I say is it's stupid to name architecture or art after a religion(with the exception of religious art such as "Islamic caligraphy" or religious buildings like mosques or churches - which is arguable aso.)


----------



## tpe

In the excerpted book on Islamic Art and Architecture that I mentioned in my previous post, I highlight this one especially good statment on the evolution of Islamic Art and Architecture:

_"In other words, Islamic art did not slowly evolve from the meeting of a new faith and of a new state with whatever older traditions prevailed in the areas in which the state ruled; it came forth suddenly as the faith and the state, for, *whatever influences may have been at work in the building and decoration of early Islamic monuments, their characteristic is that they were built for Muslims, to serve purposes which did not exist in quite the same way before Islam.*"_

- from *Islamic Art and Architecture 650-1250*, Richard Ettinghausen, Oleg Grabar, and Marilyn Jenkins-Madina


----------



## mantar

Does the author consider the title "Islamic architecture" as a collection of various combinations of distinct forms and motives that can be thought to students for designing a building irrespective of its location, time, nationality, ethnicity or function (as the name suggests)? i.e Can I design a Museum such that people would say "This is Islamic! before saying Arabic, Persian, Ottoman, Byzantian, Classic etc or a combo of them? (In which case the answer is probably "No" and the better title to describe the intended set is "Architecture of Islamic Societies" which would encompass architectural styles of various societies that made Islam part of their culture. The answer to that existence would be then probably "Yes".

The question could also be a mere categorization without any established terminological meaning, where the underlying question of its subjective definition can be anything such as:
"Do the Muslims have a distinct style when they design a building? (No)."
"Do Muslims build structures? (Yes)."
"Can a building be related/devoted to Islam irrespective of who builds it? (Yes)."
"Can a common architectural motive/symbol/style (like the cross in Catholicism) that is exclusively shared by all Islamic societies be found? (Don't know)."
"Are there structural elements that are particularly related to Islam by the masses irrespective of shape, geography, ethnicity or nationality? (Yes, Minarets)"
Since a categorization is nothing more than a set. They can intersect or overlap with other categorizations. Nothing stops from an element of a set from belonging to other sets as well.
So the question of "does Islamic Architecture exist" is ill defined. No definition to that name has been provided. If there was a definition, we could have argued if that set is empty or not.


----------



## tpe

It is not an ill-defined question. It is simply a matter of definition. It is not like a set that is both open and closed at the same time.




mantar said:


> Does the author consider the title "Islamic architecture" as a collection of various combinations of distinct forms and motives that can be thought to students for designing a building irrespective of its location, time, nationality, ethnicity or function (as the name suggests)? i.e Can I design a Museum such that people would say "This is Islamic! before saying Arabic, Persian, Ottoman, Byzantian, Classic etc or a combo of them? (In which case the answer is probably "No" and the better title to describe the intended set is "Architecture of Islamic Societies" which would encompass architectural styles of various societies that made Islam part of their culture. The answer to that existence would be then probably "Yes".
> 
> The question could also be a mere categorization without any established terminological meaning, where the underlying question of its subjective definition can be anything such as:
> "Do the Muslims have a distinct style when they design a building? (No)."
> "Do Muslims build structures? (Yes)."
> "Can a building be related/devoted to Islam irrespective of who builds it? (Yes)."
> "Can a common architectural motive/symbol/style (like the cross in Catholicism) that is exclusively shared by all Islamic societies be found? (Don't know)."
> "Are there structural elements that are particularly related to Islam by the masses irrespective of shape, geography, ethnicity or nationality? (Yes, Minarets)"
> Since a categorization is nothing more than a set. They can intersect or overlap with other categorizations. Nothing stops from an element of a set from belonging to other sets as well.
> So the question of "does Islamic Architecture exist" is ill defined. No definition to that name has been provided. If there was a definition, we could have argued if that set is empty or not.


----------



## mantar

let me rephrase "ill-defined" as "not-defined" then )


----------



## Cyrus

What should some Muslims do if they don't want their architecture is called Islamic?


----------



## swerveut

Turknology said:


> Now here is another thing (I didn't want to get into theology but I am trying to prove a point here ). Anything that is not part of the Quran or Sunnah is classified as Biddah according to Islam, thus classified as anti-Islamic, thus Islamic architecture is an oxymoron as structures like domes and minarets are classified as biddah and thus anti-Islamic.
> 
> PS: thus why the blue mosque for example would be neo-Byzantine, or neo-Byzantine Ottoman (if you want to narrow it down), just as the 19th century one would be neo-Baroque (or neo baroque Ottoman if you want to narrow it down)


1: Islamic here does not mean Islamic as a religion only. Islamic here implies Islamic cultures. Don't confuse the two please. 

2: If Ottoman architecture is only just neo-Byzantine, what the heck are arabesque patterns doing inside? Why do most of those mosques have arcaded courtyards attached to them? Why do they have minarets? Why do they use different decorative themes inside and outside rather than just doing jesus mosaics? why isnt the building laid out in the form of a latin or a greek cross? Why is the interior space more open in plan rather than being a mix of hallways and arcades and niches like the other churches? 

Answer: only the inspiration for the massing is Byzantine, however due to the added elements of it, its an entirely separate genre of Ottoman architecture. 

And then again, Moroccan architecture and Ottoman architecture from similar periods totally do not look the same. However they have certain elements again which are common to them even though its totally different building layouts. These elements which are the common grounds are the ones which enable their OVERALL grouping as Islamic X architecture (substitute X here which whatever you want to call your architectural style). Dont know how many times the term LOOSE GROUPING can be emphasized here. (please note here, Islamic is used as a CULTURAL term due to the presence of the common elements. Nothing to do with religion again)

Also, architecture is usually classified according to the dominant streams of its influence. Ottoman Islamic again is a very very broad category because even in the Ottoman genre, the Selimiye mosque and the Ortakoy mosque do not fall into the same style. In effect, you can classify the hell out of any architectural style you want however if you use the term Islamic architecture, you do not use it as the base level grouping. You ONLY AND ONLY use it as an UPPER LEVEL grouping. 


Also, some people are quoting here absurd examples which makes me seriously doubt their intelligence. I mean neo-classical buildings and pictures of houses in a neighbourhood and trying to label them Islamic is like trying to call a pig a horse. I have never come across such definitions myself and if you have, I would advise you to change which-ever hokey teachers or books it is that you have been following. :nuts:




mantar said:


> the better title to describe the intended set is "Architecture of Islamic Societies" which would encompass architectural styles of various societies that made Islam part of their culture. The answer to that existence would be then probably "Yes".


I think this has been emphasized over and over again in this thread, by saying that Islamic is a loose grouping, overall grouping, usually followed by classifiers etc. Btw, unless you are an academic yourself who has researched architecture, I would refrain from asking academics themselves to change their definitions. Also, please note - a lot of these books are not written by Muslims who are trying to usurp and label everything as Islamic. These are written by people who have done thorough study of the subject. Saying that Muslims are calling everything Islamic and trying to usurp our architectural styles is just a product of your own xenophobia. 




mantar said:


> "Do the Muslims have a distinct style when they design a building? (No)."
> "Do Muslims build structures? (Yes)."
> "Can a building be related/devoted to Islam irrespective of who builds it? (Yes)."


The following questions: 

"Can a common architectural motive/symbol/style (like the cross in Catholicism) that is exclusively shared by all Islamic societies be found? (Don't know)." *YES* Please read previous posts. 
"Are there structural elements that are particularly related to Islam by the masses irrespective of shape, geography, ethnicity or nationality?" *Yes,* Minarets - not only just minarets btw, please read this post 
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=69407511&postcount=95



mantar said:


> Since a categorization is nothing more than a set. They can intersect or overlap with other categorizations. Nothing stops from an element of a set from belonging to other sets as well.


Well said.


----------



## end2012

Turknology said:


> how can you use a religious term to define a certain style if that style is against the core teachings of that religion?
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> It's like saying that the theory of evolution is christian science because Darwin was from a Christian background.


+1


----------



## Mekky II

Jünyus Brütüs said:


> The answer is obvious actually. There is no Islamic architecture as well as there is no Christian or Jewish architecture.
> 
> The truth is; most common architecture styles are the ones that born in Europe. That's because expansionism of European Empires, all those architecture styles influenced the today's world. And all those European architecture styles borrowed somethings from neighbouring regions too.
> 
> Middle Eastern architecture can be called Islamic that is because the Arabic and Persian style buildings widely accepted in Islamic nations through ages. But that does not mean the architecture itself is Islamic neither Neo-Baroque is Christian nor Neo-Classic is infidel.
> 
> It's the silliest thing that naming architecture styles after religions.


*The main problem with "islamic architecture" is that it is a flat expression without core... Islamic civilization was based on too pillars : Persia on one side and Iberia on the other. Byzantine Empire was not conquered, so byzantine architecture can't be integrated in initial movement. In middle of those two pillars, it was a desert (in all senses of the term), there was no typical "islamic architecture" that came from arabian peninsula. There was absolutely no "arabic architecture" to put in conquered lands. On other hand, when ancient greeks, romans or when british, spanish or russian expanded their respective empires, they imposed their core architectures...

I did read in previous pages that architecture is linked with philosophy... yes why not, however islamic philosophy is part of western philosophy... islamic thinkers were unable to pass over old greek heritage, something that could maybe be a proof that the great library of Alexandria was maybe not completely destroyed, and it simply turned only a legend to make afraid foreigners.

Another example said here was that "stupa" is a typical 100% buddhist architecture... Actually it's wrong, and again, it's greeks, or more precisely indo-greeks that did make evolve it and helped to sprawl buddhism through Asia. In beginning, the stupas were simple mounts :










For me, "islamic architecture" is more linked with Yemen, that with Iran, Turkey or Egypt. 








*


----------



## Adrian12345Lugo

Mekky II said:


> *The main problem with "islamic architecture" is that it is a flat expression without core... Islamic civilization was based on too pillars : Persia on one side and Iberia on the other. Byzantine Empire was not conquered, so byzantine architecture can't be integrated in initial movement. In middle of those two pillars, it was a desert (in all senses of the term), there was no typical "islamic architecture" that came from arabian peninsula. There was absolutely no "arabic architecture" to put in conquered lands. On other hand, when ancient greeks, romans or when british, spanish or russian expanded their respective empires, they imposed their core architectures...
> *



What do you mean by "core architecture"? and how does it apply to the civilizations that i highlighted?


----------



## Mekky II

Adrian12345Lugo said:


> What do you mean by "core architecture"? and how does it apply to the civilizations that i highlighted?


*We can identify spanish architecture in latin america or british one in india (and so the anglo-indian architecture that followed), but what is arabic in Iran ? that's what i mean by "core", what is the "original" architecture ? Maybe the term "islamic architecture" was simply invented because there was no arabic one ? Like someone said, i hardly imagine someone talking of jewish or christian architecture (except in very early times of both religions, the first churches and synagogues, but not architecture movements that followed => gothic etc)*


----------



## Adrian12345Lugo

Mekky II said:


> *We can identify spanish architecture in latin america or british one in india (and so the anglo-indian architecture that followed), but what is arabic in Iran ? that's what i mean by "core", what is the "original" architecture ? Maybe the term "islamic architecture" was simply invented because there was no arabic one ? Like someone said, i hardly imagine someone talking of jewish or christian architecture (except in very early times of both religions, the first churches and synagogues, but not architecture movements that followed => gothic etc)*


Saying Spanish, French, British, etc Architecture is as erroneous as sayin Islamic Architecture. All one can see in these styles is Greek/Roman Architecture. One can also argue, that it is all Greek Architecture. 

It is some what incorrect to say, *"You can see Spanish Architecture in Latin America"* The more correct way of stating it would be* "You can see the Architecture utilized by the Spanish in Latin America".*


----------



## SoroushPersepolisi

islamic arcitecture iself is heavily based on sassanid persian architecture

regardless, islam is a theory, but the architecture is infact under an umbrella. eg: a mosque in amsterdam would be built with dutch architecture, therefor one can say dutch architecture is also islamic? not really. in many cases since buildings hat have been built in muslim countries have some shared elements, in general the existence of such elements makes islamic architecture, but really islamic architecture can be rather an umbrella. 

its a hard question to answer. eg there is no such thing as christian architecture, or else all of europe would have "christian" architecture. the case is that usually in the west they lump all of the middle east together therefor they lump all their architecture together under the name of their religion. im persian, and we never consider our architecture the same as "arab architecture". we are both majority muslim, but our culture as well as our architecture arent the same, they are distinct.


----------



## Mekky II

Adrian12345Lugo said:


> Saying Spanish, French, British, etc Architecture is as erroneous as sayin Islamic Architecture. All one can see in these styles is Greek/Roman Architecture. One can also argue, that it is all Greek Architecture.
> 
> It is some what incorrect to say, *"You can see Spanish Architecture in Latin America"* The more correct way of stating it would be* "You can see the Architecture utilized by the Spanish in Latin America".*


*Hm... sorry but when tourists come in Greece, France, Spain or Italy, they don't come visiting same architecture, there is common features (domes, archs etc), but there was clear regional evolutions that make for example german looking cities in Brazil, US or China (Tsingtao) something immediately recognized. But you are right to say "colonial architecture", because spain got many architectures between andalusian, galician or catalonian etc though there was many groups of immigrants recreating the city they left, not only germans did (basques did in Chile etc). But it stays spanish colonial from Puerto Rico to Ushuaia.

SoroushPersepolisi> it's bad example, most new mosques built in europe look turkish or maghreb ones..., i think the single country in europe doing its own mosques outside Turkey is Russia. But you are right, the one saying russian architecture is islamic would be a fool. :lol:*


----------



## Adrian12345Lugo

Mekky II said:


> *Hm... sorry but when tourists come in Greece, France, Spain or Italy, they don't come visiting same architecture, there is common features (domes, archs etc), but there was clear regional evolutions
> *


The same exact thing can be said for "Islamic Architecture". yet you are against the term "Islamic Architecture".



any building built by European settlers that is considered moderately Beautiful or not, has this same style incorporated into it. and if for any strange reason a European building doesnt have this style incorporated into it, in anyway, is because it lacks a style all together.










http://www.flickr.com/photos/archer10/5159101019/in/set-72157624951040662/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/archer10/2216378561/in/set-72157603783207840/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/chikitosam/4258148322/


*What makes Colonial buldings beautiful is not the "regional design" that you speak of, but the Greek/Roman Styles incorporated into them*.


----------



## tpe

The Stupa is older than the Greek incursion into the Subcontinent . *The fact that you see it in Indo-Greek and Bactrian coinage is because the Greeks under Alexander tried to assimilate and adapt to the native cultures that they conquered.* In carved Greek gems and coins from all over the conquered lands, you see images that are local to the cultures: images of the God Serapis in Egypt, the Hellenistic rulers in the garb of the Persian Kings, etc.

You will NOT see images of the stupa in Greek coinage in the Mediterranean world because it NEVER existed in those lands.



Mekky II said:


> *Another example said here was that "stupa" is a typical 100% buddhist architecture... Actually it's wrong, and again, it's greeks, or more precisely indo-greeks that did make evolve it and helped to sprawl buddhism through Asia. In beginning, the stupas were simple mounts :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


----------



## tpe

What is this? 

Are you saying that the architecture of the Spanish Empire cannot be distinguished from the architecture of the Roman Empire? That French Classicism is EXACTLY the same as the architecture of Classical Greece? And that the Roman and Hellenistic Style of architecture is the same as the architecture of the time of Pericles?

To say THAT would be ridiculous. It smacks as total *ignorance* in the history and evolution of architecture.




Adrian12345Lugo said:


> Saying Spanish, French, British, etc Architecture is as erroneous as sayin Islamic Architecture. All one can see in these styles is Greek/Roman Architecture. One can also argue, that it is all Greek Architecture.
> 
> It is some what incorrect to say, *"You can see Spanish Architecture in Latin America"* The more correct way of stating it would be* "You can see the Architecture utilized by the Spanish in Latin America".*


----------



## end2012

Mekky II said:


> Another example said here was that "stupa" is a typical 100% buddhist architecture... Actually it's wrong, and again, it's greeks, or more precisely indo-greeks that did make evolve it and helped to sprawl buddhism through Asia. In beginning, the stupas were simple mounts :


The picture/diagram is for ONE stupa (Butkara Stupa in Pakistan), not ALL stupa.

Please use common sense? ONE = ALL?

Also, it is speculative drawing. Not based from real excavation. Actual, it is rubbish drawing.


----------



## end2012

SoroushPersepolisi said:


> islamic arcitecture iself is heavily based on sassanid persian architecture
> 
> regardless, islam is a theory, but the architecture is infact under an umbrella. eg: a mosque in amsterdam would be built with dutch architecture, therefor one can say dutch architecture is also islamic? not really. in many cases since buildings hat have been built in muslim countries have some shared elements, in general the existence of such elements makes islamic architecture, but really islamic architecture can be rather an umbrella.
> 
> its a hard question to answer. eg there is no such thing as christian architecture, or else all of europe would have "christian" architecture. the case is that usually in the west they lump all of the middle east together therefor they lump all their architecture together under the name of their religion. im persian, and we never consider our architecture the same as "arab architecture". we are both majority muslim, but our culture as well as our architecture arent the same, they are distinct.


Yes. Agree. Western Scholar lump all middle-east architecture into 'islamic'.


----------



## Adrian12345Lugo

tpe said:


> What is this?
> 
> Are you saying that the architecture of the Spanish Empire cannot be distinguished from the architecture of the Roman Empire? That French Classicism is EXACTLY the same as the architecture of Classical Greece? And that the Roman and Hellenistic Style of architecture is the same as the architecture of the time of Pericles?
> 
> To say THAT would be ridiculous. It smacks as total *ignorance* in the history and evolution of architecture.


No i didnt say any of that, but altering a style of architecture a bit doesnt make it your own nor a unique one. I find it some what offensive and *ignorant* to say "French, Spanish, Dutch, Etc Architecture", when all they are is the continuation of Roman Architecture, which was the continuation of Greek architecture. and lets not forget that there are other civilizations who had their influence and deserve credit, such as the Moors in southeren Europe.

This is a building in Mexico built around 1900, would this be considered Mexican Architecture?








http://www.flickr.com/photos/gib_l/48658624/


----------



## swerveut

SoroushPersepolisi said:


> islamic arcitecture iself is heavily based on sassanid persian architecture
> 
> regardless, islam is a theory, but the architecture is infact under an umbrella. eg: a mosque in amsterdam would be built with dutch architecture, therefor one can say dutch architecture is also islamic? not really. in many cases since buildings hat have been built in muslim countries have some shared elements, in general the existence of such elements makes islamic architecture, but really islamic architecture can be rather an umbrella.


Sorry to remind you this but:


The Mesopotamians were using bricks for architecture long before Sassanids. 
The arch form can be heavily found in Babylon, other fertile crescent cities before Persia. 
Where did Sassanids use the hypostyle hall for their architecture?
Where did the Sassanids group a hypostyle hall with a courtyard for example?
What about the Nabatean tradition and hundereds of roman architectural forms in the Middle East and North Africa? (It was an integral portion of the Roman Empire before Islam)
What about the architecture of ancient Egypt and of the Egyptian Christians?

If you are ignoring these like most Iranians seem to be doing on this thread, I would be inclined to think that you are all being delusional. 

In fact the architecture of the first mosque in Islam (after Medina) - the mosque of Damascus - borrowed heavily from the Roman tradition. Same goes for the Dome of the Rock. Many of the early mosques (eg. Ibn Tulun) even recycled the columns existing in Roman architectural sites. 

In short, to believe that most Muslim architecture is Sassanid influence is just delusional thinking and extreme ignorance.


----------



## tpe

Edit: my initial posting here was a bit harsh, and so I edited it to make the tone less confrontational. I sometimes get a bit too impatient here...

-----------------

Edited post:

They are not a continuation of Roman Architecture. 

First, don't forget the almost 1000 years separating late antiquity and the reinterpretation of the classical idiom. 

Second, there ARE major differences between the classical schools of the different nations.

Third, several styles co-existed in all these countries with classicism, and all of these styles (classicism included) showed major variations within themselves.

There is a difference between the classicism of Palladio with that of Alberti, for example.

The same with Palladio and Robert Adam, as is with Robert Adam and Inigo Jones.

And BTW, I can see at least 5 Vitruvian rules that the building from Mexico violates.



Adrian12345Lugo said:


> No i didnt say any of that, but altering a style of architecture a bit doesnt make it your own nor a unique one. I find it some what offensive and *ignorant* to say "French, Spanish, Dutch, Etc Architecture", when all they are is the continuation of Roman Architecture, which was the continuation of Greek architecture. and lets not forget that there are other civilizations who had their influence and deserve credit, such as the Moors in southeren Europe.
> 
> This is a building in Mexico built around 1900, would this be considered Mexican Architecture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gib_l/48658624/


----------



## jaypaul

taj mahal can be considered as a biggest islamic structure , and it is also a wonder of the world .


----------



## Mekky II

Adrian12345Lugo said:


> The same exact thing can be said for "Islamic Architecture". yet you are against the term "Islamic Architecture".
> 
> Any building built by European settlers that is considered moderately Beautiful or not, has this same style incorporated into it. and if for any strange reason a European building doesnt have this style incorporated into it, in anyway, is because it lacks a style all together.
> 
> *What makes Colonial buldings beautiful is not the "regional design" that you speak of, but the Greek/Roman Styles incorporated into them*.


*Yes, because europeans did give a name to their evolutions (like catalan modernism for gaudi works in Barcelona), and not simply put into "christian architecture".

Mayan revival architecture does have roman/greek in it ? =>








*


----------



## Mekky II

tpe said:


> The Stupa is older than the Greek incursion into the Subcontinent.


*For sure it is :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan

But the modern form is not :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-buddhism *



tpe said:


> *The fact that you see it in Indo-Greek and Bactrian coinage is because the Greeks under Alexander tried to assimilate and adapt to the native cultures that they conquered.* In carved Greek gems and coins from all over the conquered lands, you see images that are local to the cultures: images of the God Serapis in Egypt, the Hellenistic rulers in the garb of the Persian Kings, etc.
> 
> You will NOT see images of the stupa in Greek coinage in the Mediterranean world because it NEVER existed in those lands.


*They not only tried, they did assimilate local cultures. Hellenism has this particularity, an example so far, lot of scholars put the origin of western civilization in ancient egypt, because lot of basic similarities, but also considering the impact that did have ptolemaic dynasty, the last ancient dynasty of Egypt. *


----------



## end2012

What is this kurgan? it is not related to stupa. Please not make your new theory. 

Greco-Buddhism only influence some region, not all region.


----------



## tpe

Mekky II said:


> *For sure it is :
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan
> 
> But the modern form is not :
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-buddhism*


*

Even the above wikipedia article you quote about Graeco-Buddhism acknowledges that stupas were Buddhist and that the Greeks recognized them as such. Specifically, the article states:

A large Greek city built by Demetrius and rebuilt by Menander has been excavated at the archaeological site of Sirkap near Taxila, where Buddhist stupas were standing side-by-side with Hindu and Greek temples, indicating religious tolerance and syncretism.*


----------



## Mekky II

end2012 said:


> What is this kurgan? it is not related to stupa. Please not make your new theory.
> 
> Greco-Buddhism only influence some region, not all region.


*Wikipedia is not for people read it ? It is related to stupas since it originates to indo-europeans that gave vedic religion, itself giving hinduism, itself giving buddhism.

Religion (with a bit R) is only a long evolution.*


----------



## end2012

Mekky II You writing nonsense. Please do not create personal theory.

Maybe Atlantis give civilization also :lol:


----------



## Mekky II

tpe said:


> Even the above wikipedia article you quote about Graeco-Buddhism acknowledges that stupas were Buddhist and that the Greeks recognized them as such. Specifically, the article states:
> 
> _A large Greek city built by Demetrius and rebuilt by Menander has been excavated at the archaeological site of Sirkap near Taxila, where *Buddhist stupas* were standing side-by-side with Hindu and Greek temples, indicating religious tolerance and syncretism._


*Hm, "buddhist architecture" is as idiot term as "islamic architecture".*


----------



## Mekky II

end2012 said:


> Mekky II You writing nonsense. Please do not create personal theory.
> 
> Maybe Atlantis give civilization also :lol:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis

*Of course it's a personal theory... from a period i was not yet born. :lol:

It is so hard to take knowledge that europe and india rule the world ? better to start saying "jesus-christna (krishna)" that to continue be blind man ! :lol:*


----------



## end2012

*"jesus-christna (krishna)" :lol:
*

you are mad. Like crazy theory..


----------



## tpe

Mekky II said:


> *Hm, "buddhist architecture" is as idiot term as "islamic architecture".*


They are NOT. These terms have been used for ages, and there is a VAST literature defining and elucidating the meaning and scope of these terms.

Please read my previous posts, and some of the references I have cited.

And not to sound critical, but it is a bit presumptuous of you to think that you know more about this subject than the people from the last hundred years (at least) who have devoted their entire lives to the study of architecture.


----------



## Mekky II

end2012 said:


> *"jesus-christna (krishna)" :lol:
> *
> 
> you are mad. Like crazy theory..


*It's not mine too this one...

And another, it will make you thinking i am mad again (but who is really ?) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Christianity#Buddha_and_Jesus

*


----------



## Mekky II

tpe said:


> And not to sound critical, but it is a bit presumptuous of you to think that you know more about this subject than the people from the last hundred years (at least) who have devoted their entire lives to the study of architecture.


*You know, big thinkers have good ideas only between 10 or 20 years. All other years of their lifes are only conservative ones and try to make thinking other peoples they are right. For me, there is no fixed history, nore there is a fixed architecture, and even more a fixed religion... what will be atheist architecture ? this ?  








*


----------



## KWT

Mekky II said:


> *The main problem with "islamic architecture" is that it is a flat expression without core... Islamic civilization was based on too pillars : Persia on one side and Iberia on the other. Byzantine Empire was not conquered, so byzantine architecture can't be integrated in initial movement. In middle of those two pillars, it was a desert (in all senses of the term), there was no typical "islamic architecture" that came from arabian peninsula. There was absolutely no "arabic architecture" to put in conquered lands. On other hand, when ancient greeks, romans or when british, spanish or russian expanded their respective empires, they imposed their core architectures...
> 
> I did read in previous pages that architecture is linked with philosophy... yes why not, however islamic philosophy is part of western philosophy... islamic thinkers were unable to pass over old greek heritage, something that could maybe be a proof that the great library of Alexandria was maybe not completely destroyed, and it simply turned only a legend to make afraid foreigners.
> 
> Another example said here was that "stupa" is a typical 100% buddhist architecture... Actually it's wrong, and again, it's greeks, or more precisely indo-greeks that did make evolve it and helped to sprawl buddhism through Asia. In beginning, the stupas were simple mounts :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me, "islamic architecture" is more linked with Yemen, that with Iran, Turkey or Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


The Ummayad (2nd Caliphate), which was based in Damascus and Meditarranean-leaning, was much more influenced by Byzantium than by Sassanian Persian architecture. And, yes, large parts of the Byzantine Empire WERE conquered by the Muslims, initially: Egypt, the Levant, Eastern Anatolia....etc. And, yes, Arabs were building cities before Islam! What are you talking about? The Sabeans, the Thamudians, the Nabatians, the Palmyrenes and so on were living in lavish cities hundreds, if not thousands, of years before Islam.


----------



## memot_jr_jr

i believe that there is no specific islamic architecture. to me islamic architecture is based on its principal as well as the functions of that specific building. islamic architecture exist but in temrs of its principal. sorry for poor english.


----------



## swerveut

end2012 said:


> What is this kurgan? it is not related to stupa. Please not make your new theory.
> 
> Greco-Buddhism only influence some region, not all region.


Certainly influenced most of North India. Before Islam made inroads into the region there was a heavy greek influence on the local art form. Read about the Gandhara civilization in Northern Pakistan - they were making splendid statues of buddhist motifs in the greek sculptural style!



tpe said:


> Even the above wikipedia article you quote about Graeco-Buddhism acknowledges that stupas were Buddhist and that the Greeks recognized them as such. Specifically, the article states:
> 
> _A large Greek city built by Demetrius and rebuilt by Menander has been excavated at the archaeological site of Sirkap near Taxila, where *Buddhist stupas* were standing side-by-side with Hindu and Greek temples, indicating religious tolerance and syncretism._


Completely true. The Greeks who came and settled in Afghanistan / North Pakistan had a tremendous influence on the art and architecture of the region and after some time got fully integrated in regional society. There were buddhists making stupas before as well as after the Greek influence and the tremendous difference in form can be seen in the architecture of the Gandhara civilization of Northern Pakistan. By the way, the Greeks became buddhists as well (and later Muslim) so its only obvious that their architecture would reflect some of their influence. Same case with Persia and Islamic architecture of former Persian lands. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara




Mekky II said:


> *You know, big thinkers have good ideas only between 10 or 20 years. All other years of their lifes are only conservative ones and try to make thinking other peoples they are right. For me, there is no fixed history, nore there is a fixed architecture, and even more a fixed religion... what will be atheist architecture ? this ?
> *



I would rather believe somebody who has at least studied the subject rather than a layperson. 

By the way, by your definition, since the Willis Tower was designed by a Muslim, it would be Muslim architecture. :nuts:













Mekky II said:


> *Yes, because europeans did give a name to their evolutions (like catalan modernism for gaudi works in Barcelona), and not simply put into "christian architecture".
> *


May I remind you that sub-categorization exists in ISLAMIC architecture as well? This grouping is accepted by world scholars of architecture like it or not. And like it has been repeated thousands of times before in this thread, there exists categories like Mughal Architecture, Ottoman Architecture, Moorish Architecture, Mameluk architecture, Timurid Architecture, Safavid Architecture, etc etc. as well which are on the whole grouped in the Architecture of Islamic lands. But maybe either your curriculum didn't cover those or you were asleep in class when these were being studied.


----------



## end2012

memot_jr_jr said:


> i believe that there is no specific islamic architecture. to me islamic architecture is based on its principal as well as the functions of that specific building. islamic architecture exist but in temrs of its principal. sorry for poor english.


Yes your post same as my post before. Islamic architecture is some rules for build mosque and other building. Other decoration and detail and construction method cannot say "Islamic" or religious.

Islamic mosque can be made from glass and steel also like modern building, but then we cannot call the style as "islamic". Same for older method also.


----------



## Mekky II

swerveut said:


> I would rather believe somebody who has at least studied the subject rather than a layperson.
> 
> By the way, by your definition, since the Willis Tower was designed by a Muslim, it would be Muslim architecture. :nuts:
> 
> May I remind you that sub-categorization exists in ISLAMIC architecture as well? This grouping is accepted by world scholars of architecture like it or not. And like said thousands of times before, there exists categories like Mughal Architecture, Ottoman Architecture, Moorish Architecture, Mameluk architecture, Timurid Architecture, Safavid Architecture, etc etc. but maybe either your curriculum didn't cover those or you were asleep in class when these were being studied.


*I would prefer to follow an inventor with new ideas that an archaist that studied very hard the past. That's one reason why industrial revolution was in Europe. But everyone has the right to choose its path. 

I gave no definition at all, so putting words in my mouth is pure allegory.

Skyscrapers did take their modern form in USA and are originally from Bologna, towers were symbol of family powers, and modern skyscrapers are still a symbol of power for some families and especially companies.

Bologna in middle-age :










Also for infos, it's westerners that classified sub-groups of the supposed "islamic" architecture, a little correction in the big bazar *


----------



## swerveut

^^ I notice that the delusional ones are not just the iranis here. 

Awesome. 

Shortage of IQ and ignorance abounds in all corners of the world.


----------



## tpe

We are not specifically talking about contemporary architecture here. 

We are talking about the art and architecture of more than a THOUSAND YEARS -- an architecture where distinct elements remained the same for centuries. Have you lived a thousand years, perhaps? And how long have you been in this planet to voice your "expert" opinion, may I ask? Have you spent most of your life studying architecture?  Clearly NOT.

And how many times do you have to be told that Islam is more than a religion: it is a CULTURE.

If there is no fixed architecture, can you tell me what the Basilican plan is? Has it changed in the last 2000 YEARS, may I ask?

Frankly, your comments are a bit ridiculous...




Mekky II said:


> *You know, big thinkers have good ideas only between 10 or 20 years. All other years of their lifes are only conservative ones and try to make thinking other peoples they are right. For me, there is no fixed history, nore there is a fixed architecture, and even more a fixed religion... what will be atheist architecture ? this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


----------



## memot_jr_jr

end2012 said:


> Yes your post same as my post before. Islamic architecture is some rules for build mosque and other building. Other decoration and detail and construction method cannot say "Islamic" or religious.
> 
> Islamic mosque can be made from glass and steel also like modern building, but then we cannot call the style as "islamic". Same for older method also.


that is the beauty of it. it is diverse. islamic architecture is like the religion itself. it will be suitable for mankind until the end of time. it is flexible but still abide to the principal of Islam. you can make anything as your imagination goes but make sure that it doesnt contain human/animal forms. plants are good inspirations because they are just beautiful. 

building method is a form of technology.

besides, architecture is a branch of art. so, it must follow the rules of art in islam.


----------



## tpe

memot_jr_jr said:


> that is the beauty of it. it is diverse. islamic architecture is like the religion itself. it will be suitable for mankind until the end of time. it is flexible but still abide to the principal of Islam. you can make anything as your imagination goes but make sure that it doesnt contain human/animal forms. plants are good inspirations because they are just beautiful.
> 
> building method is a form of technology.
> 
> besides, architecture is a branch of art. so, it must follow the rules of art in islam.


I pretty much agree with what you say here.


----------



## end2012

This is false argument. Religion is not suitable for mankind firstly, so Islam superstition not better than Zoroastrian superstition or Christianity superstition or Buddhism supertition.

Islam very aggressive. Try to make everybody Muslim forcefully.


----------



## Mekky II

tpe said:


> And how many times do you have to be told that Islam is more than a religion: it is a CULTURE


*The culture of Persia is as close to Saudi Arabia as USA is close of China.*


----------



## Mekky II

swerveut said:


> ^^ I notice that the delusional ones are not just the iranis here.
> 
> Awesome.
> 
> Shortage of IQ and ignorance abounds in all corners of the world.


*Beware of your insane words ! Some parts of the world lost their IQ either when people moved from Indus to Ganga.*


----------



## Triple C

Are these apartment blocks in Antalya counted as a part of "Islamic" architecture?


----------



## end2012

Not now. Maybe after 100 year it become part of "Ancient Islamic architecture" :lol:


----------



## tpe

Mekky II said:


> *The culture of Persia is as close to Saudi Arabia as USA is close of China.*


Islamic culture contains many cultures. As has been said many many times on this thread, not all Persian culture is Islamic, and not all Islamic Culture is Persian. Similarly, not all Buddhist culture is Chinese, and not all Chinese culture is Buddhist. Not all Byzantine culture is Christian, and not all Christian culture is Byzantine.

Is this very difficult to understand?


----------



## Cyrus

Generalization is not always good for Muslims, the same westerners who call different architectures of Muslims as "Islamic Architecture", also talk about "Islamic Terrorism" and extend the false actions of some Muslims to the whole Muslims of the world.


----------



## tpe

Please read all previous posts before you waste people's time posting such nonesense.



Triple C said:


> Are these apartment blocks in Antalya counted as a part of "Islamic" architecture?


----------



## tpe

So you are now linking architecture with terrorism?

Seriously, please think over what you want to post before actually posting it. Else, you will end up embarrassing yourself with such rubbish.



Cyrus said:


> Generalization is not always good for Muslims, the same westerners who call different architectures of Muslims as "Islamic Architecture", also talk about "Islamic Terrorism" and extend the false actions of some Muslims to the whole Muslims of the world.


----------



## Cyrus

tpe said:


> So you are now linking architecture with terrorism?
> 
> Seriously, please think over what you want to post before actually posting it. Else, you will end up embarrassing yourself with such rubbish.


I talked about "Generalization" and "Islamic Terorism" was just an example, anyway I think architecture and terrorism can be linked to each other too, *If* you link the architecture of some people in a village in Indonesia in the south east Asia with the architecture of some other people in Senegal in the west of Africa just because both of them are Muslims!!!


----------



## swerveut

Marathaman said:


> People will believe anything if they are indoctrinated properly. If it is indeed the case that very few muslims become atheists/agnostics openly, it's because they are indoctrinated much more effectively, not to mention social and family pressures. Nothing to do with some inherent awesomeness of Islam.


Thats bogus. If you believe this indoctrination is really good, then obviously, it appeals to people's rational senses. There can be no explanation otherwise. 




Marathaman said:


> There is too much emphasis on strengthening the perceived link between Islamic beliefs and so-called Islamic architecture, as if the architecture was spawned from the religion itself. Nothing of the sort of course. Muslim architects simply modified and developed styles available at the time, just like they do today.


If you would read the thread earlier, nobody is claiming that Muslims (a VERY DIVERSE group of people) invented this architecture. Obviously it was regional architecture modified according to Islamic rules and in order to serve Islamic purposes due to which some distinctive stylistic elements developed which would not have done so otherwise to the same extent. 




b3ta said:


> I think the term 'Islamic Architecture' is very Euro-centric. It lumps in the architecture of all the vast Islamic world into one broad categorization, when in fact the regions have different architectural styles. This is why I voted No.



Nobody is claiming otherwise. It is indeed an overall grouping signifying the architecture of the Islamic regions. There are thousands of sub-classifications within this broad grouping. 



SoroushPersepolisi said:


> and also, u mentioned islamic philosophy influencing persian architecture??? LOL persian philosophy is arguiably what even caused islamic philosophy to exist. man u need to do some reading
> 
> science and technology of the "islamic golden age" is mostly of iran, as prophet muhammad said "If learning and Knowledge were suspended in the highest parts of heaven, the Persians would attain it" - Muhammad (pbuh)


Read what I said again:
_"As I have said many times before, only thing that warrants a certain styles inclusion in the Islamic group is because it follows a *philosophy molded by any of the Islamic rules - patterns as opposed to pictures, gardens of heaven, towers to call people to prayer, hypostyle or valuted halls to accomodate rows of worshippers, symmetry depicting the unity of god, etc.* etc."_

We are not talking about existential philosophy here but more about a lifestyle or way of thinking molded by the restrictions or the requirements of Islam. 

Cheers.


----------



## Marathaman

swerveut said:


> Thats bogus. If you believe this indoctrination is really good, then obviously, it appeals to people's rational senses. There can be no explanation otherwise.


Indoctrination appeals to the emotions, not to rationality. That's called science. "Good indoctrination" is a result of repetition, social isolation and groupthink.



> If you would read the thread earlier, nobody is claiming that Muslims (a VERY DIVERSE group of people) invented this architecture. Obviously it was regional architecture modified according to Islamic rules and in order to serve Islamic purposes due to which some distinctive stylistic elements developed which would not have done so otherwise to the same extent.


Fair enough, but I have encountered this attitude myself on several occasions. Hence my post.


----------



## Leander

No, but it'd be pretty ugly.


----------



## Cyrus

Let's see some pics of Islamic sculpture and painting from about 500 years ago, you can see Islamic nudity, Islamic dancing, Islamic drinking wine and some other Islamic things in these pics:


----------



## Face81

Some examples from the United Arab Emirates:

*1) Turkish Mosque, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates*















































*2) Jumeirah Mosque, Dubai, United Arab Emirates*










































































*3) Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan Mosque, Abu Dhabi, United Arab *Emirates


----------



## Triple C

Anyone knows the historical section plans of Haram mosque of Mecca, where Kaaba is located?

Or, is there any Islamic urban planning?


----------



## SoroushPersepolisi

Triple C said:


> Anyone knows the historical section plans of Haram mosque of Mecca, where Kaaba is located?
> 
> Or, is there any Islamic urban planning?


to be honest its hard to find the old plan, az the new mosque has just trumpled over they old ones

and islamic urban planning?? i would say no, the urban planning would be relevant to the country it would be in, rather than religion

same thing with europe, theres no real "christian urban planning", lol  but rather related to the country it is in


----------



## SoroushPersepolisi

idiamindada said:


> where did you learn architecture, my friend?
> 
> Skyscraper is American invention to be precise.
> 
> Taj Mahal is indeed Indo-Persian.
> 
> what make things 'Islamic' is….the philosophy in designing the architecture. then it becomes Islamic Architecture.
> 
> do you understand?


skyscrapers arent inventions, their innovations, 

and americans arent the only ones that innovated them, tall buildings were developed over time in many places , although maybe the first modern looking skyscrapers were in america, the build up to that stage was not american, maybe the application was though


----------



## SoroushPersepolisi

Face81 said:


> Some examples from the United Arab Emirates:
> 
> *1) Turkish Mosque, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://i29.][/QUOTE]
> 
> that looks really cool :cheers:


----------



## Face81

The Al Noor Mosque in Sharjah lit up as part of the Sharjah Light Festival 2011:


----------



## AbuAseel

*intersting post*

It seems to me from reading this post that the writer has a combination of ignorance in architecture history and theory and possibly extremism to his/her own culture and hateful of others.
it's very simple; Islamic architecture does exist and it did brow from Persians (which existed before Islam, no one denying this) byzantine and others. Islamic architecture/art borrowed from those cultures some features but made it very beautifully because it eliminated the extensive decoration and figure art. while applying unique geometrical shapes and Arabic calligraphy. This my opinion not because i am a Muslim but because i am an architect and i appreciate art. you can ask other s about this, ask Jorn Utzon and other architects who were influenced by Islamic architecture.

now your concerned why is it called Islamic architecture and most people have answered your question and because this was developed when islam dominated most of the world and applied its principles. it does not have anything to do with the faith. every architecture "type" in history was evolved and influenced by its precedents. Persian architecture for example did not exist from nothing and certainly it wasn't the first civilization in the world. you have Mesopotamian, Babylonians and other civilization that existed prior. 

another concern of yours was about why when Islamic architecture barrows from Persian like minraht or whatever else you said, why is it still called "Islamic"?. well you can call it whatever you want, you can remove the word "islamic" and call it the "architecture of the people who were muslims and borrowed from ancient Persian architecture". if that's going to make sense to you can call it that. However it doesn't change anything about the architecture and its beauty. it will still be known throughout history as Islamic architecture to Muslims and non-Muslims because that is the name it became known as. Early Christian architecture and gothic architecture is an example. it borrowed from Romans but it doesn't change its name.

Islamic architecture is vey generic term and many other types of architecture falls under Islamic architecture including Persian architecture.
but you can say that ancient Persian architecture is not Islamic architecture you certainly can because it isn't. But after Islam dominated Persia and it became part of the Islamic empire the architecture of that region is now falls under Islamic architecture. this how history works we don't have the power to change it. 

Lastly when you say the Arab has no architecture before Islam and they only had tents i say you are very ignorant. you are probably referring at the desert which is now largely Saudi Arabia but have you ever bothered to study the Arab civilizations that existed in what is now Yemen and were one the most rich and advanced kingdoms in history.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

I think it would be daft to not recognise mosques as being islamic architecture. They are the very embodiment of it, just as churches and cathedrals are examples of Christian architecture.

Nobody though talks of architectural styles in Europe (beyond churches) as being Christian architecture. So what is the style of building in the Arabic world if you don't include mosques? What would be the best _other_ examples of architecture of the region?


----------



## El_Greco

Most of the new mosques are absolutely tragic, but Al Nahyan Mosque seems to be an exception - it looks great - I like all the whiteness!


----------



## Deco

I don't know.
Soon I'll read this thread.


----------



## manhuelofspain

*Valencia (Spain) "baños del almirante"*
Puerta de los Baños del Almirante. Valencia por Trix: El finde al balneario con mi mami y mi tita, en Flickr


----------



## CNB30

you might as well ask if there is Greek architecture, of course there is Islamic architecture.

Is this a joke?


----------



## SoroushPersepolisi

ok then , if there is such un-clarity, we should all call newton, galileo, davinci and edison christian scientist, or lump them all even in a more general way, as scientists of the "world of christianity"

heck, the tower of london , big ben and all of paris and rome etc are all part of "chrisitan architecture" 

why we oppose such thought is not merely by technical aspects, but culturally and for IDENTITY. 

the west lumps us all together by sheep, calling our buildings, people etc all as "islamic", but for themeselves, they always respect the ethnicity, nationality etc of the person/place or thing 

calling avincenna just an "islamic" scholar is like spitting on persians/iranians 
not that islamic is bad, but u guys are stripping all of our national identity by such a small statement
not to mention many of the scientists and poets were pretty much against theocratic ideologies
some were even anti religion , like omar khayyam, which is labeled as an islamic poet :lol:


----------



## tanklv

Of course there is/was.

To claim anything else is ridiculous!

And that is not just my opinion.


----------



## SoroushPersepolisi

the issue mainly is the terminology
when we say islamic architecture, it appears as if islam itself is the determinant or the creator of certain architectural philosophies
in small details it might be true, but as a whole, the architecture that is reffered to as islamic is mainly the further development of the stlyes that were already there prior to islam or even developed after islam, yet, islam itself was not the catalyst to the creation of those styles
some elements and styles travelled across the muslim world however each region kept its own general style
there are mosques in malaysia that look nothing like what you see in african countries with muslim populations

we can perhaps say "architecture of muslim countries", but even that is not a style

what is islamic architecture exactly? mosques? urban patterns? what ? 
it is hard to label them all under one umbrella that originally was not meant to be used for architecture but was meant to guide lifestyles


----------



## ThatOneGuy

Yes, of course there is islamic architecture. Colourful mosaics and pointed arches are a huge part of the islamic style.


----------



## SoroushPersepolisi

ThatOneGuy said:


> Yes, of course there is islamic architecture. Colourful mosaics and pointed arches are a huge part of the islamic style.


both of those existed before islam

islam did not make any of those 

by chance, islam spread in countries were mosaics and arches existed, and these elements were exaggerated during the islamic era , but islamic belief did not create these styles
it did influence some details , like not having human figures in mosques, but that is pretty much it


----------



## [email protected]

Nice combination of old and new


----------



## zafarani

No there isn't any thing as such, it is a matter of convenient and yet confusing term. Architecture is indeed neutral in ts intrinsic form. We shape it based on whats available around us to provide our basic necessities. Anything superfluous can then be regarded as wastage mannerism if you like. 

Architecture is the creation of space is absolutely neutral as space. Mosque or masjid as a structure can take any form of shape with societal purpose of gathering of people towards a common good ie remembrance of the Almighty. I don't think any one group of people of religion can claim it is a result of any other kind of forms or cultures.


----------



## karibeaulieu

Of course there is Islamic architecture. According to the Hussain Alli Blog "Islamic architecture encompasses a wide range of both secular and religious styles from the foundation of Islam to the present day, influencing the design and construction of buildings and structures in Islamic culture. The principal Islamic architectural types are: the Mosque, the Tomb, the Palace and the Fort. From these four types, the vocabulary of Islamic architecture is derived and used for buildings of lesser importance such as public baths, fountains and domestic architecture.[1][2]"


----------



## The Polwoman

SoroushPersepolisi said:


> the issue mainly is the terminology
> when we say islamic architecture, it appears as if islam itself is the determinant or the creator of certain architectural philosophies
> in small details it might be true, but as a whole, the architecture that is reffered to as islamic is mainly the further development of the stlyes that were already there prior to islam or even developed after islam, yet, islam itself was not the catalyst to the creation of those styles
> some elements and styles travelled across the muslim world however each region kept its own general style
> there are mosques in malaysia that look nothing like what you see in african countries with muslim populations
> 
> we can perhaps say "architecture of muslim countries", but even that is not a style
> 
> what is islamic architecture exactly? mosques? urban patterns? what ?
> it is hard to label them all under one umbrella that originally was not meant to be used for architecture but was meant to guide lifestyles


I totally agree with that. We neither talk about Christian architecture, we talk about Roman, Gothic, Baroque terminology when talking about chruches. Likely there are similar styles from the Arab world which have been implemented on mosques. Because I've seen modernist, brutalist and typically Dutch-bricked mosques as well. With Synagogues the same story.


----------

