Mohammad Arkoun in his article "Muslim Character: The Essential and the Changeable" quotes a verse from the Quran: All that is on the earth will perish, and only that will survuive which is under the care of the Lord, Majesty and Magnificence" (LV, 27-28). This verse in Arabic contains the words fana and baqa. Arkoun goes on to address the meanings of these two words. Fana is the annihilation of all existing beings on earth. Baqa means duration. eternity which applies to God. Arkoun considers that this is way of framing our existence in a religious way. He equates baqa with the permanent and unchangeable. It represents the way man viewed his existence.
Arkoun goes on to discuss modernity. He states, "What we call modernity...brings a historical way of looking at our problems which is a rupture with the ontological framework in which civilisations have developed according to the teaching of the revelation as they received it from the Bible, the Gospels, and of course the Quran. This change is fundamental. The problem for us is to face this rupture which is imposed on us from outside Islamic history. How do we face this rupture in terms of our own thinking? Do we face it with rich and original munazarat like the Muslim thinkers when they had to face . as we do today, modernity coming from the West? They had to face the the philosophical thought coming from classical Greece which had nothing to do with the ontological framework of the revelation. Muslim thinkers faced this intellectually. But what do we do in our Muslim thinking and social behaviour today? He goss on to speak about the essential character of the city of Cairo and argues for the need for architects to develop concepts, which have very precise contexts, as instruments of thought.
Arkoun ends by stating the following: "Islamic thought is cut-off from two dimensions which it is absolutely essential to restore and revitalise...We must first rehabilitate our tradition of thinking. We are cut-off from our tradition of thinking as it was established by Muslim thinkers in the classical age of Islam...It is also a problem of historical research. We have not yet acquired historical knowledge of all the dimensions of thinking developed in the classical ages in what we call the turath, the legacy of Islamic thought". This crisis of thought is reflected in the buildings we as Muslims build for our societies today. It is also reflected in the societies themselves.
In his essay entitled "Spirituality and Architecture", Arkoun argues for a critical approach to religious architecture. He states: 'This critical approach to spirituality is particularly absent in Islamic contexts today; political scientists and sociologists speak of the 'return of religion', the 'awakening of Islam', the struggle of an emotional, unthought sprituality opposed to 'western materialism and positivism'. Within these confusing idealogical discourses, which are disguised with religious claims and vocabulary, architects are commissioned to revitalise, restore, and preserve 'Islamic' cities; to design 'Islamic' urban patterns, not only with select, often stereotypical 'Islamic' features...all important architectural achievements contribute either to strengthening the dominant ideaology in any given historical tradition and political order, or to creating a breakthrough in the inherited, imposed system of values and beliefs...the built environment in contemporary Muslim societies is under the influence of a generalised ideaological bricolage, which can also be described as a semantic disorder." In both essays, Arkoun insists that Muslims are confused about the concept of sign and symbol. Instead, he argues that we tend to use other concepts: those of signs and signals. We do not pay enough attention to this rupture between the symbolic and the ideological expression of existence;the latter is becoming more powerful .
Oleg Grabar tackles this subject in his essay entitled "Symbols
and Signs in Islamic Architecture". He states " What, if anything,
within contemporary Muslim countries can legitimately be considered Islamic.
Furthermore, can this something be defined with sufficient clarity to be used
as a criterion for evaluation... In proposing a system to deal with signs and
symbols the assumed social and psychological need to symbolise provides a different
framework within which to consider Islamic architecture". Grabar goes on
to propose the following questions:
1. Is there a Islamic system of visually perceptible symbols and signs?
2. How universally Islamic is such a system and what are its variants?
3. What are the sources of the system, the revealed and theologically or pietistically
developed statement of the faith, or the evaluation of visual forms over 1400
years?
4. In what fashion and how sucessful were signs and symbols transformed into
buiding forms?
5. How valid is the experience and memory of the past for the present and the
future?
With slight edits, these questions can be addressed to all those involved in the study of Islamic societies today. Ismail Serageldin speaks about decoding the symbols of the past in his essay "Architecture and Society". In this essay, Serageldin states: "Architects must acquire the sophistication to read the sybolic content of this heritage in a manner that enriches their ability to produce relevent buildings for today and tomorrow...This sophistication can only come through a strengthened educational process which engenders in future architects the critical sense required to decode the symbolic content of the past in a realistic, as opposed to a ideaologically mystifying, fashion."
Continuing this theme, Serageldin in his essay "Faith and the Environment"argues for a Muslim approach to the environment by returning to sources. This systematic review of the sources should produce a general set of principles that would help guide one to an appropriate response to the problems confronting Muslim societies today. He goes on to state: "As the Muslim world shakes and stirs in fitful search to reaffirm its independent identity, it confronts the cultural as well as the political realities of a world dominated by the West generally and the United States specifically. This has led many in the Muslim world to define their identities by emphasising the 'otherness' of the Muslim being form the hegemonic world context. Doubtless there is much truth to this 'otherness', but emphasissing it at the outset leads to a 'rejectionist' approach which, to my mind, is narrow and constrictive and in fact does not do justice to the richness and variety that Muslim cultures have achieved in the past, and can achieve again, by the more self-assured process of adaptive assimilation that characterised its confrontations with the Greek and Roman cultures at the time of the early Muslim conquests..." Serageldin goes on to identifying general principles from an architectural perspective, but which can be taken at a much broader context. These principles are as follows:
Stewardship of the Earth; the intended role of man in this world
Relationship with Nature; the role of man in dealing with nature is guided
by two principles 1.) There is an order and a balance in the cosmos and in this
world which must be respected. 2.) It is the role of man to develop natural
resources in this world nad the benefit from the rewards of this development.
Relationship between Men; The domain of Mu'amalat (transactions) that covers the relationships between humans in the context of a societal organisation.
Individual Behaviour ; The call for humility in individual behaviour.
He concludes by stating: "This self-knowledge,thus developed through painstaking analysis of past achievements and present realities, must then go to enrich the collective intellectual resources of architects practising in the Muslim world. The myths, images, and stimuli that they can bring to bear on any design problem must be enriched with the type of concepts that transcend the simplistic physical reading of a monumental heritage and promote a deeper understanding of self and society within the context of an Islamic world view."
Comments