The Semiotics of the Islamic Mosque

8/11/2019 The Semiotics of the Islamic Mosque

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-semiotics-of-the-islamic-mosque 1/12

Pluto ournals

The Semiotics of the Islamic MosqueAuthor(s): Roger JosephSource: Arab Studies Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Summer 1981), pp. 285-295Published by: Pluto JournalsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41857571 .

Accessed: 22/09/2014 05:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Pluto Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Arab Studies Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 203.135.190.8 on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:43:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=plutojournals

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41857571?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/41857571?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=plutojournals



The Semiotics of

the

Islamic

Mosque

Roger Joseph

Most

scholars

n

the human

ciences

gree

thathuman

pace

is

organized

according

o

cultural

isposition;

o

speak

of the

organization

f

space

is to

address neself

o

questions

f

metaphoric

meaning, ognition,

ehavior,

nd

ontology.

uildings

re

nvested

with

meaning

nd

hence re

part

f

system

of

communicationnd

a

means of

distributing

nowledge.

How a

people

arrange

heirmaterial

world

gives

us

messages

bout a culture's

erceptions

andcognition. o uncover heseprocesses f architectonicignificancesto

reveal culture's

ymbolic

nd

cognitive ispositions.

I

An

analysis

f theMuslim

mosque

as a

system

f

cognitive

nd aesthetic

signs

llows us

to

better

pprehend

he consciousness f the

slamic world.

The

organization

f

space

within

he

mosque

is

a

grammarlike

ystem

f

communication;

he onstituentlements

epresentognitive

nd

expressive

codes,repetitiouslymittingmessages o the audienceofworshippers. he

structure

nd

meaning

f

these

nonlinguistic

essages

an

be

derived

hrough

a

semiotic

nalysis.

While

there

has

been a certain mount

of theoretical

peculation

n

the

area

of

nonverbal

ommunication,

nterest

n

architectural

emiotics

has

been rather imited. he most

explicit

work has

been

by

Eco

(1968,

1972,

1973,

1979),

Krampen

1979),

Preziosi

1979

a

&

b),

and

the

excellent

eview

article

with

bibliography

y

Agrest

nd

Gandelsonas

1977).

While anthro-

pologists

have

demonstratednterest

n

the

ubject

cf.

Hall,

1966),

hemost

explicit

emiotic reatment as

been

Fernandez's

tudy

f

the

West African

Fang (1977), Bourdieu's nalysisof thearchitectonicsftheBerberhouse-

hold

(1979a),

and

Boudon's

unpublished aper.

Most

anthropological

is-

cussion

of

the

ymbolic

ignificance

f

house

construction,

uch

as the four

articles n the

Middle East

by Verity,

Andrews, therton,

nd

Foster

in

Oliver

1971),

is

flawed

by

theoretical onfusion.

There

have,

of

course,

been a number f

semiotic

tudies

of other

spects

of

slamic

culture,

ncluding

conomics nd

ethos

Bourdieu,

1979b),

itera-

ture

Berque,

1978; Meeker, 1979; Geertz,

1976),

ritual

Joseph,

1980a),

dreams

Malti-Douglas,

1980),

and

the

marketplace

Geertz,

1979),

as

well

Roger

oseph

s

Professor

f

Anthropology,

aliforniatate

University,

ullerton.

ASQ Volume

3

Number

3

285







286

Arab

Studies

Quarterly

as

two

survey

ssays

Joseph,

1980b

&

c). Although

nothing

f a

specific

semioticnature

has been written

n

the

mosque,

a number

f

studieshave

analysed

the

nature

of Islamic

symbolism

s

expressed

n

sacred architec-

ture. have

used Creswell n

early

slamic

rchitecture,

s well s

interpreta-

tions

by

Titus

Burckhardt

1976), Oleg

Grabar

(1973,

see

especially

his

bibliography

nd

his

introduction

o

Derek

Hill,

1964),

and

Ernest

Kuhnel

(1966);

other works selected

for consultation

nclude

Grube

1967), Hoag

(1963),

James

1974),

and

Wilson

1957).

The authors

do

not

always agree

withone another

nd the

ist s

by

no

means

xhaustive,

ut

a

representative

notion of the structuringf space within hemosque can be drawnfrom

them.

The Arab

mosque

is

a

complex

architectural

tructure

which

fulfills

variety

of

communicative

unctions

t

different

evels.

At one

level

the

mosque

is

merelypart

of

the

larger

whole

of

Islam;

according

to the

Prophet,

rather

minor

djunct

o

larger

oncerns.

The most

unprofitable

thing

hat eateth

up

the wealth

of a Believer

s

building"

recorded

by

bn

Sa'd and

quoted

in

Creswell,

1950:609).

The

Qur'an

has

its

centricity

n

Islam because

it

s

literally

he word

of

God;

the

mosque

can

neverhave

this

status

since

it

is not

created

by

God

but

rather

by

men.

There

can

be no

Persian or Turkish or IndonesianQur'an, yet mosques createdin these

cultures ll reflect

arochial dispositions.

As

part

of a

larger

whole,

the

mosque

directs

us outside

tself;

he

very

orientation

f the

building

s

determined

y

an

external

orce,

he ocation

of

Mecca.

Thus,

on

Friday

throughout

he

world

he

faithful

ow

toward

single

ite.

This attachment f

every pace

on

earth,

s

if o

a

magnet,

y

the

spiritual

center ustains the

centricity

f the

infinite

neness

of God.

The

mosque

is

defined

ot

only

externally y

Mecca

but

also

by

ts

metaphysical

location

as

a

sanctuary

rom

he secular

world.

Despite

feuds,

vengeance,

class

antagonisms,ealousy,envy,

nd all

the

other

disputes

which

differen-

tiate

men,

the

mosque

congregation

s itself ndifferentiated.n a worldof

peril,

dissidence,

nd

competition,

he

mosque

offers

refuge.

ddly

enough,

forall the iterature

n

Islam,

the

question

of

what

kinds

of

social

relations

are

formulated

y

congregational

membership

n a

mosque

has

not

been

explored

cf.

Gulick,

1976:195).

There

are

other evels

of

meaning

which

re

more

or

less

internal

o the

mosque:

codes

establishing elationships

ased

on

spatial

designs,

eometric

patterning,

hythmic

equences,

oppositions

between

high

and

low,

the

structuring

f

polygons,

nd

other

ystematically

ssembled

elements.

ne

of themost trikingeatures f the nternal rganization fthemosque s the

repetitive ragmentation

f

space

so that

ach

unit,

whether

mpty

r

filled

(in

the

sense

of

having

material

bject

in

it)

is

similar

o all

other

pace,

only

farther nd farther

part,

deemphasizing

ny

single

tem

which

might

draw

attention

o its

uniqueness.

pace

within

he

mosque

is

unpunctuated;







Islamic

Mosque

287

it

is

like the

dhikr

hants

of occult recollection

repeated

over

and

over

n

an efforto

shut

out

the externalworld

of distractions nd

tunnel

ntothe

singular

world

of

unity

with

God.

The

point

of

such

redundancy

as often

been

explained

s

a conscious

attempt

o create balanced

equilibrium

y

preventing

he

eye

from

ixing

n a

single

point.

This,

of

course,

s

quite

the

opposite

of

repeatedly

hanting

he

name

of

God as

in the

dhikr

A

more

consistent

nterpretation

s thatthe

geometrically

atterned

epetitions

re

logical

combinations

riginally

meant o be

concentrated

n.

If

one

recalls

that

the

Arabs

as

well as the ancient

Egyptians,

Hebrews,

and

Greeks

utilized rithmomanticalculations n orderto divine the sacredworldby

numbers,

he

combinations

f

hexagrams

nd

octograms,

ach

having

ts

own

special

arithmomantic

alues,

offers

means

of

meditating

n

the

ineffable.

t

least

this

nterpretation

voids

the

difficulty

f

explaining

why

artisans

reated uch difficultnd

complex

tructuresn orderto

not

draw

attention

o them.

Finally,

he

mosque

is

a

system

f communication

ot

only

because

of

what t

is,

a Muslim

sacred

building,

ut because

of what

it is

not. slam's

distinctive eatures

re,

at

least

in

part,

defined

by

the

qualities

which

differentiate

t from

he other

great

Abrahamic

religions

f

Judaismand

Christianity.ne wayofdiscoveringhedistinctiverammar f themosque

is

to examine how it

differs

rom he

synagogue

nd

church.Such a

task

would

necessitate review from medieval

commentaries

hrough

Henry

Adams' discussion f

Mont-Saint-Michel

nd Chartres o

the

contemporary

criticism f

Zevi,

and cannot

be

attempted

ere.

will,

however,

ketch

ne

of the

more

obvious

differences,

he direction

f

prayer.

In

Islam

one

prays

oward

he

ingle

onsecrated enter

f the

Ka'ba.

All

mosques

are

oriented

n

the direction f

Mecca,

the embodiment

f the

Divine

Presence;

the entire sacred

sign systemplaces

the Ka'ba at

the

physical

enter

f

Islam,

ust

as at the verbal

evelthe

Qur'an

is

the center.

LikeJerusalem orJews, slaminvests

single

itewith

pecial

holy ignifi-

cance for

he ntire

ommunity

f

faithful.

his

singleness

f

spatial

orienta-

tion

differs rom he

orientation

f the

Christian

ltar

toward

the

unrise

r

the

part

of

the

sky

where he rebornChrist

rises

t Easter.

Thus

churches

"have

parallel

axes,

whereas

the

axes

of all

the

mosques

of the world

converge"

Burckhardt,

976:5).

This

centricity

s,

of

course,

reinforced

y

the

pilgrimage

o

Mecca.

It

is this

physical

reminder

hat

every

Muslim

belongs

o a faith

hared

by

a

community

hich ranscends

olitical

bound-

aries

that

gives

certain

mpetus

o

pan-Islamic

movements.

he

architec-

tonic tructurefthereligiontself issolved istinctions hichmight nthe

surface

ause

disjunctions

n the communication

mong

believers.Unlike

the

Christian

hurchwhere

every ignificant

ction

converges

t the

altar,

there s no

liturgical

enter n the

mosque;

the

acred

center

s

not

within

he

edifice

but outside t. The

fact

hat here s

an

external

piritual

itetoward







288 Arab

Studies

Quarterly

which the

congregation

s directed

has certain

osmological mplications.

Within he

prayer

hall or

haram

s

a

prayer

ichebuilt

n thewall closest

o

Mecca.

The

niche

or

mihrab

not

only

orients

pace

but erves

s

an

index

o

mark he

spiritual

ifference

etween

he

worshipper

nd

the Divine.

Qiblah

or

the direction

oward

Mecca,

obviouslydepends

on the location of

the

mosque;

in

Syria

the orientations

to

the south

while n Yemen

it is to the

north.The

shifting

ocation of the

mihrab

mphasizes

he invarient

ature

of

God while

t

the same

time

pointing

ut

the

rbitrary

nd

hencemutable

nature

of

man

and

his

works.

II

Space,

both

inside and outside the

mosque,

communicates

system

f

relationships

f

individuals o

society,

o each

other,

nd

to themselves.

f,

however,

he

structure f

mosque space

is

a

social code

embedded

n the

cultural

xperiences

f

variousethnic nd

historical

ommunities

e should

not

expect

any

absolute

homogeneity

f

cognitive

r aesthetic

xpression.

While

Islam is

a

single piritual ystem,

ts

720

million

ollowers

re

consti-

tutedbyoverthreehundred ivergentulturesWeekes,1978:xv).Moreover,

Islamic

architecture,

eginning

with the construction

f

the

Dome

of the

Rock at

Jerusalem,

pans

a

period

of

1,400

years.

Both

temporal

nd

spatial

dissimilitudesmake

t

unlikely

hat

very

ultural

rtifact

ould

preserve

he

identical

structure,

point

Geertz demonstrates

n

his discussion

of

the

differentorms f slam

in

Java and Morocco

(1967).

Insofar

s the

mosque

is a

sacred

artifact,

ts

structure emains

more

or less the

same;

but

unlike

the

Qur'an,

the

mosque

is also

a

technological

nd social

artifact nd

as such

is the

product

of the

ability,

wealth,

nd

material

t hand

as

well

as the

cultural

xperiences

f the artisanswho built

t.

Like the different

ultural

realitieswhich pawnedtheLatin,Byzantine, nd Protestanthurches,he

mosque

reveals

multitude f

styles enerated

y

different

ultural

egions,

temperaments,

nd influences.

While this

point

s,

or

should

be,

self-evident

hrough

he

regional

iffer-

entiation f

slamic

art,

t

s

particularly

ritical

fone

is

trying

o

discern

he

contours

of an

architectonicemantics nd

syntax.

Moreover,

ne needs

to

know

the

degree

of

correspondence

etween

the

grammar

f

a seventh-

century

mosque

(insofar

s

it

can be

reconstructed)

nd

the

grammar

f

a

twentieth-century

osque.

There has been

considerable

experimentation

with

liturgical

pace

in both

Christianity

nd Judaism

in

recent

years;

certain

echnological

nnovations uch as

nylonpaneling,

lass

walls, lumi-

num

frames

nd so

forth

ave

radically

ltered

he

design

of

contemporary

religious

building

n the

West

cf.

Allen,

1977).

To

what

degree

has

mosque

architecture

hanged

and to what

degree

has

space

within he

mosque

been







Islamic

Mosque

289

altered? oes the

ontemporary

osque

n

Washington,

.C.

or

the

mosque

to

be built t the

foot

of Monte

Antenne n Rome

reflect

he

same

spatial

properties

s

al-Aqsa

or bn Tulun

or

Cordova?

Such

a

question

s

central

o

any

analysis

that seeks

to

make

the

signs

of

the

mosque

intelligible.

These comments

oint

out the

complexity

f the

topic.

Semiotics

offers

an

appropriate

methodology

or

ranscending

hese

difficulties,

means of

treating

he

mosque

as if t were

special

anguage

with ts

own ensemble f

semiotic

odes

which

eveal

omething

bout both

cosmic and

social

space.

There

s,

however,

ne

last

problem:

o what

degree

an one

argue

that

ny

peoplesharea commoncognitive ramework?ertainly, here reobvious

cultural

differences ithin he

Muslim Arab

community;

here are also

shared ultural

nterests f which

anguage

nd

religion

re two of

themore

obvious.

While

cannot claim

that the

representation

f

space

within he

mosque

provides

total

cognitive

map

incorporating

ll the

complexities

f

the

Arab

world,

would

insist

hat the

mosque

is

a

composite

of

some of

the more

mportant

eatures

f that

world

and,

in

respect

o

cosmological

space,

offers means of

deriving

ertain

spects

of

Arabic

thought

nd

action.

The

history

f the

Middle East does

not,

f

course,

ollow

single,

imple,

pattern.But much of thathistory as been characterized yuncertainty,

political

nstability,

nd conflict.

Men as

individuals,

r

collectively,

ave

fought

ne

another,

nd violence

s

a

recurring

otif.

ide

by

side

with his

agonistic

world

s,

however,

counter

rend,

ne whichhas evolved

special

consciousness. f the

Middle East has

a

history

f violence and

conflict,

t

also

has

a

spirit

f

unity,

deeply

ngrained

otionof

brotherhood,

eneros-

ity,

and

sanctuary.

A

spirit

of

agonistic

conflict

s countered

by

one

of

collective

olidarity;

hese

wo

tendencies

re coterminous

n the emiotics

f

the

mosque.

The

mosque

is

like

a

huge hinge

between

wo

conceptual

worlds:

the

sacred world of

Islam and the secular

world

of

practical

and

often

messy

affairs.Within he

mosque

are two

directions

one toward

the

nviolable

space

of

the Ka'ba

and

the

other,

ts

opposite,

away

from

the

perfect

location. It is from

he

minaret manarah

,

normally

ocated

on

the

wall

opposite

the

minrab that the faithful re

called

to

prayer.

One

could,

of

course,

argue

that this was

an

accidental

attempt

o achieve

a

pleasing

aesthetic

balance. How much more

ogical,

however,

o

argue

that

as the

minrab

s

the most

anctified rea

within

he

mosque being

he

closest

o

the

Ka'ba,

the minaret

where

he

muezzin

alls the

faithful

o

prayer

s

isomor-

phically ocated at the pointof greatesthazard.

The

mosque

s not

merely gate

between

he secularworld

of

peril

nd

a

sacred world

of

refuge.

he

mosque

is

also

an environment

n which the

collective

pirit

sserts

tself ver n indeterminant

orldof

uncertainty

nd







290

Arab

Studies

Quarterly

danger.

The

verypresence

f a

mosque

s an outward

ign

of the

presence

f

this

solidarity.

As

the horizontal

xis of the

mosque

is

semiotically

oded,

so too

is the

verticle

xis;

as

certain

values attachtoward

the direction

f

Mecca,

other

values

attachto the

sky,

placing significance pon

the

distinction etween

high

and low.

Of

course,

a distinction etween

ky

and

earth

s

a basic

element n

all

the

Abrahamic

religions; igh

Sermon

on the

Mount,

rising

Christ,

heaven,

etc.)

is

assigned

a

greater

alue

than low

(fall

from

grace,

hell,

etc.).

Although

slam does not

allegorically

ncode

man's reach

for he

heavensto theextent f theupward hrust fchurches,he call to prayers

issued from the

minaret,

he

highest

oint

in most

mosques.

The

body,

which

s

the

praying

ehicle

tself,

mustbe

purified

ecause

t s

ordinarily

n

contact

with

the

earth,

a

place

of

pollution

nd

dirt.

n

order to

ritually

cleanse this

earthly

ody,

verymosque

has

an

ablution

fountainwhere he

limbs

can be

purified.

Water

has

more than

a utilitarian

unction;

ts

semiotic

value,

however,

s

quite

complex

nd

cannotbe

pursued

here.)

The

movement f

worshippers

n

prayer

s

itself

mimetic f

the

high-low

on-

trast;

he

standing

ttitude

istinguishes

an

from

ll other

nimals,

nvest-

ing

him with

a

special

status,

while

the

reclining

ttitude

recapitulates

he

notion ofsubmission o God

(cf.

Burckhardt,

976:87).

The act ofsubmis-

sion is

made when one is

closest o

the

ground,

metaphorically

ecognizing

man's

biological

status s

earthbound

ust

as the

upright osition

s

mimetic

of

his

biological

uniqueness.

Burkhardt

ummarizes

he

link between

he

gestures

of

prayer

and

a

cognitivemap

of

man's

relationship

o God:

These

three

ttitudes

escribe

n

space

the directional

egments

f

a

cross,

which

soteric

cience dentifiesithwhat

might

e termed

he

existential

dimensions"

f

man,

namely:

ctive nd

"upright"

articipation

n

the

pirit

which ranscendshe naturalworld,heunfoldingf consciousnessnto he

"horizontal"f

existence

nd,

finally,

he

reature's

ovement

way

from

he

divine

ource,

downward

all

forwhich ubmission

o the Divine Will

compensates

Ibid.: 85).

One

must

be

careful

bout

making

oo

much

of elevation

s a diacritic

marker

or

any

special

kind

of

Islamic

cognition.

As

has been

pointed

ut,

altitudinal

distinctions an

be

found n almost

every

human

context

cf.

Bouissac,

n.d.).

The

liturgical

itual n

many

eligions

nvolves

ome

vertical

movement;

moreover

ny

architectural

urface

s

going

to have a

bottom

and a

top.

The

point

n all this s not such obviousfactsbutrather hat he

dichotomy

etween

upper

and

lower

plays

n

important

art

n

the

ontolog-

ical

landscape

of

the

mosque.

Because

the

high-low

istinction

s made

in

other

cosmologica

contexts,

one must assume

that,

at

least

to a

certain







Islamic

Mosque

291

extent,

he

values

of

this

opposition

were

part

f

a

general

modeling

ystem.

Two

critical

signs"

within he

mosque

are the

mihrab

or

prayer

niche,

and theminbar

or

pulpit.

have

already

discussed he

mihrab

s a doorlike

marker

or

orienting

orizontal

pace.

However,

the

prayer

niche s also

part

of the

codification f

vertical

pace indicating gain

the

distinction

between

p

and

down;

its vault

representing

eaven

and the

piédroit

up-

porting

he rch

corresponding

o earth

Burckhardt,

976:86).

The fact hat

there

s

often

lamp

hung

over

the

middle of

the

mihrab

cf.

Grabar,

1973:121)

s

presumablysomorphic

o thedistinction

etween

piritual ight

and spiritualdarkness.BothGrabar (Ibid.) and Burckhardt efer o the

"verse

of

light"

passage

in the Koran

(XXIV,

35):

God

s

the

ight

f he

heavensnd

he

arth. he

ymbol

f

His

ight

s

a niche

wherein

s a

lamp;

he

amp

s n

glass,

nd

his

lass

s

as

a

radiant

tar.

The

light)

s nourished

y

blessed

live

ree,

hichs

neitherf

he astnor f

he

west,

whose il

would ll but

glow

hough

ire

ouch

t

not.

Light pon ight.

God

guideth

o

His

Light

whomHe

will,

nd

God striketh

ymbols

or

man,

and God

knowethll

things

Burckhardt,

bid.:

91).

The semiotic

ignificance

f a raised area

is

reinforced

y

the

minbar

a

narrow,

aised staircase

r

pulpit

djacent

to the

prayer

niche.

The

stepped

levels

of

the

minbar

eading

from he

ground

o a

canopied

cathedrallike

throne

re mimetic f the

three-stepped

tool thatMuhammad stood

upon

while

ddressing

he

faithful

romhis

home,

he

original

mosque,

n

Medin-

a. This

prototypic

tool had three

evels;

the

Prophet

at

on

the third evel

and

restedhis

feet

on the

second.

The first

aliph,

Abu

Bakr,

sat on

the

second

step

and rested

his

feet n the

first.

mar,

henext

aliph,

at on

the

third evel

and

placed

his feet on the

ground.

Thus

early

in Islam an

indexical distinction as made betweenupperand lower. These levelsof

hierarchy

re

ncorporated

nto

the

minbar

which

sually

has

between

even

and eleven

teps.

While

the

imam

preaches

his

Friday

sermon

from

ne

of

the lower

evels,

the

upper steps

of the minbar and

in

particular

he

top

one,

which s

adornedwith

head-board

n

the manner

f

a

throne,

re

left

empty; hey

recall the

preeminent

unction

f

the

Prophet"

Burckhardt,

1976:93).

III

Human

beings

re not

only

he rchitects

f the

hings hey

build;

they

re

also

the

architects

f

their

xperience.

An

ontological andscape

does

not

emerge

rom

ome

mental

ssense,

but rather

rom he

structure

f a

social

environment

nd

the

relationships

ithin hat nvironment.

he

mosque

is







292

Arab

Studies

Quarterly

not

merely

physical

site

for

prayer,housing

the

message;

it

is

itself

message,

means

of

structuringxperience.

ecause

the

mosque

derives

ts

meaning

from

men,

the

signs

of the

mosque

are statements bout

how

men

constitute heir

osmology.

The

physical

tructure

s itself n icon

represent-

ing

certain

propositions

hat

Arab Muslims

have about the

structure

f

meaning.

The

mosque

does

not,

of

course,

generate

he

larger

macrocosm

within

which t

fits;

he

cosmological

properties

f Arab

thought

nd action

take

etymologicalprecedence

over the architectural

onventions.

What can

be

argued s that the structure fthemosqueis isomorphic o the structuref

meaning;

and

as

meaning

is

structurally

ifferentiated,

o too are

the

elementswithin he

mosque.

I

am

here

merely

eiterating

position

that

Grabar has

already

made in

reference o

the

syntactic

tructure

f the

mosque.

It

can

be

imagined

hat

he rchitectural

orpheme

f

the

mosque

that

s,

the

mallest

meaningful

nit

f he

building

is at

times

single

honeme

a

single

unit

of

construction

and

at other

imes

ither

set

of such

single

phonemesr even a sortofphonemicbsence,ike

thevisual

or

auditoryinterval

etween ords r

sentences

1973:116).

While

Grabar

tends to locate the

meaning

of

signs

almost

exclusively

within

he

mosque

itself,

my

position

s

that the

mosque

not

only

has an

internal

rchitectonic

tructure ut that

t

has

a structure

f

signification

n

terms

of the

external

world,

acting

metaphorically

s a

gate

between wo

opposite

modes of life.

The

social

environment

f Arab culture

s a constant

nterplay

etween

the

oppositions

of

corporate olidarity

nd

agonistic

ife.

Both

thesemodes

exist

simultaneously

nd are

expressed

nall sortsofarenas.The mosque is

but

one of

many

tructures hich

laborate

his

ppositional

haracter;

t

s,

however,

specially

diacriticbecause

it

highlights

ot

only

the communal

world but

also

that

aspect

of the communal

world

which is

part

of

the

sacred. One

sees with

even

greater

larity

cosmologicalassumption

hat

the

profane

world of

strategies,

manipulation,

nd

exploitation

of other

men is

a

polluted

world,

whereas the world

of shared

consciousness

with

God

is

a

harmonious world of constraint

nd

purity.

n this

sense the

mosque

is an

ontological

critique

of man's

agonistic

mpulses.

This

study s,

of

necessity, reliminary.

here

are a

number

of

formal

aspects

of

space

within

he

mosque,

such as

the

relationship

f

arabesque

polygons

to

Pythagorean

rithmomancy,

r

the

relationship

f

the

open

part

of the

mosque

to

the covered

part,

hatremain

o

be

dealt

with.

There

is,

moreover,

he central

oncern

of

the

social

anthropologist:

ow

do

these







Islamic

Mosque

293

signs

function

n the

ocial world

oday?

f-the

mosque

s

no

longer

central

part

of ife

n some

parts

of the Middle

East,

ts

tructure

till mbodies

la

trame ilencieuse

e la

signification."

o

anthropologists,

his ilent

web

of

meaning

ains

ts texture

ot

through

he aesthetic

orce

of

a

monumental

building

but

through

he

cultural

ignificance

t

gives

the

men

and

women

who

gather

n

it. The

sign

elementswithin

he

mosque

do not

exist

apart

from

ociety;

ndeed t s

society

which nvests he

igns

with heir

articular

grammatical

hape.

This

study

has

focused,

artly

ecause of imitationsn

the

iterature,

n

an architectural emiotics. Its major thrust,however, is toward an

ethnographic

emiotics

which

ocates the

mosque

within

wider

analytic

frame

f

cultural

nstitutions.

havetried o

discern ertain ormal

roperties

of

a

fairly tylized

rt

form

nd

discusshow these

formal haracteristicsre

related

o

cosmology

nd

social

organization.

ut

unless

we

penetrate

he

impact

of

the

formal

system

upon living

people,

the whole

enterprise

becomes an

arid exercise.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams,

Henry.

1959.

Mont-Saint-

icheland Chartres.

ew

York:

Double-

day.

Agrest,

iana and

Mario

Gandelsonas.

1977.

"Semiotics nd

the

Limits

of

Architecture."n A

Perfusion

f

Signs

edited

by

Thomas Sebeok.

Bloomington:

ndiana

University

ress,

pp.

90-120.

Allen,

Gerald.

1977.

"Religious Buildings."

Architectural

ecord

July,

pp.

101-16.

Berque,

Jacques.

1978. Cultural

Expression

n Arab

Society

Austin:

Uni-

versity fTexas Press.

Boudin,

Pierre,n.d. "Re-lecture 'une ville:

a

Medina

de

Tunis."

Unpub-

lished

paper.

Bouissac,

Paul. n.d.

"Space

in

language:

The

concept

of

distance

n sur-

realistic

poetics

and

poetry."

Unpublished

paper.

Bourdieu,

Pierre.

1977.

Outline

of

a

Theory

f

Practice.

London:

Cam-

bridge

University

ress.

.

1979a.

"The BerberHouse."

In

Algeria

1960.

London:

Cambridge

University

ress.

.

1979b.

The

Disenchantment

f the

World."

n

Algeria

960

Lon-

don: CambridgeUniversity ress.

.

1980.

Le Sens

Pratique.

Paris:

Les Editions de

Minuit.

Burckhardt,

itus.

1976.

Art

of

Islam:

Language

and

Meaning.

World

of

Islam Festival

Trust.







294

Arab

Studies

Quarterly

Charnay,

Jean-Paul.

1971. Islamic

Culture

and

Socio-

Economic

Change

Leiden:

E. J.

Brill.

Creswell,

K.

ArchibaldC.

1960.

"Architecture."

n

Encyclopedia f

Islam

.

1969.

Early

Muslim

Architecture.

vols.

Oxford

University

ress.

Eco,

Umberto.

1968. La struttura

ssente.

Milan:

Bompiani.

.

1972. "A

Componential Analysis

of the

Architectural

ign/

Col-

umn

"

Semiotica 2.

.

1973. "Function

and

Sign:

Semiotics

fArchitecture."

n

Structures

Implicit

nd

Explicit,

dited

by

J.

Bryan

nd

R.

Sauer.

VI A-Publica-

tions of the Graduate School of Fine Arts,vol. 2. Philadelphia:

University

f

Pennsylvania.

.

1979. A

Theory

of

Semiotics.

Bloomington:

ndiana

University

Press.

Fernandez,

J. W.

1977.

Fang

Architectonics.

hiladelphia:

S

HI.

Geertz,

Clifford.

1962.

Islam Observed.

Chicago:

University

f

Chicago

Press.

.

1976.

"Art

as a

Cultural

System."

Modern

Language

Notes

21,

no.

6:1478-99.

.

1979.

"Suq:

The

Bazaar

Economy

in

Sefrou."

In

Meaning

and

Order in Moroccan

Society

edited

by

CliffordGeertz, Hildred

Geertz,

nd

Lawrence

Rosen.

Cambridge

University

ress,

pp.

123-

313.

Grabar,

Oleg.

1964.

Introductionary

ext

to

Islamic Architecture

nd its

Decoration,

A

Photographic

urvey,by

Derek Hill.

Chicago:

Uni-

versity

f

Chicago

Press,

pp.

21-87.

.

1973. The

Formation

of

Islamic

Art. New

Haven:

Yale

University

Press.

Grube,

Ernst.

1967. The

World

of

Islam.

New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Gulick, John. 1976. The Middle East An AnthropologicalPerspective.

Pacific

Palisades,

Calif.:

Goodyear

Publishing

Co.

Hall,

Edward.

1966.

The

Hidden Dimension.

New York:

Doubleday.

H

awkes,

Terence.

1977.

Structuralism

nd Semiotics.

Berkeley:

niversity

f

California

Press.

Hoag,

John.

1963. Western

slamic

Architecture.

ew York:

George

Brazil-

ler.

James,

David.

1974.

Islamic

Art.

London:

Hamlyn.

Joseph,

Roger.

1980a.

"Vico

and the

dea

of

Knowledge

n

the

18th

nd 20th

Centuries."

n

Vico:

Past and Present

edited

byGiorgioTagliacoz-zo. London: HumanitiesPress.

.

1980b.

"Toward

a

Semioticsof Middle EasternCultures."

nterna-

tional

Journal

of

Middle

East

Studies.

.

1980c.

"Behind the

Wall of

Meaning."

American

Ethnologist.







Islamic

Mosque

295

Krampen,

Martin.

1979.

Meaning

in

the

Urban

Environment.

ondon:

Pion.

Kuhnel,

Ernest.

1966.

slamic

Art nd

Architecture.

thaca:

CornellUniver-

sity

Press.

Malti-Douglas,

Fedwa.

1980.

Dreams,

the

Blind,

nd

the Semiotics

of

the

Biographical

Notice."

Studia

Islamica

51:127-62.

Meeker,

Michael.

1979.

Literature

nd

Violence

in

North

Arabia.

New

York:

Cambridge

University

ress.

Oliver, Paul,

ed. 1971. Shelter

n

Africa.

London:

Barrie &

Jenkins.

Preziosi,Donald. 1979a. TheSemiotics ftheBuilt Environment. loom-

ington:

ndiana

University

ress.

.

1979b.

Architecture,

anguage

and

Meaning.

The

Hague:

Mouton.

.

n.d.

"Every

Little

Breeze

Seems

to

Whisper

Louise."

Unpublished

paper.

Scarfiotti,

ian.

1978.

A

Mosque

for

Rome." ARAMCO

World

Magazine

29,

no.

5:12-13.

Weekes, Richard,

ed.

1978. Muslim

People.

Westport,

onn.:

Greenwood

Press.

Wilson,

Ralph

Pinder.

1957.

slamic

Art.

New York:

Macmillan

Co.

Zevi, Bruno. 1974. Architectures Space. New York: Horizon.

The Semiotics of the Islamic Mosque

Documents

Transcript of The Semiotics of the Islamic Mosque