A a m i r 1

Fatima Aamir

17020372

Dr. Tehnyat Majeed

HIST 216

26th April, 2015

Role of Commemorative Architecture in Islam with reference to

Patronage and Regional Monumental Styles.

Commemorative architecture serves as a means to solemnize

history, epitomizing the symbolic representation of important

events or persons, honoring and preserving their memory.

Construction of celebratory monuments exists as a phenomenon in

Islamic architecture since the time of the Prophet Mohammad

himself, who laid the foundations of the mosque at Quba, marking

his emigration from Mecca to Yathrib. Commemorative architecture

is not only restricted to mosques, but can extend over to other

important monuments, particularly tombs, palaces, and forts.

A a m i r 2

Similarly, it does not merely limit itself to serve as

recognition of Muslim victory, but rather celebrates a wide array

of occurrences that have remained significant in the Islamic

sphere, including important personalities; sacred anecdotes; and

historical sites.

This paper focuses on the role of commemorative architecture as

an emblem of war and victory, a celebration of significant

events, and a vestige of important personalities. To condense it

further, this paper analyzes the commemorative architecture

during the Umayyad and the Ayyubid rules, focusing on the

memorialized motifs that can be observed in the commemorative

architecture of the Umayyad time, notably in the use of minarets

and mihrabs. It also investigates the varying positions on the

commemorative function of the Dome of the Rock. In analyzing the

architectural activity in Egypt, notably Syria by the Ayyubids,

this paper aims at drawing emphasis to the female patronage of

the time, while also accentuating noteworthy commemorative

architectures, such as the Mausoleum of Imam as-Shafi (1211).

A a m i r 3

When dealing with commemorative structures, the Dome of the Rock

remains a parallax, with two general explanations given by al-

Yaqubi and ibn Ishaq. Al Yaqubi accuses Abd al Malik of

constructing the Dome as a plot to divert pilgrims from the

Hijaz, and ibn Ishaq suggests that the Dome of the Rock was built

as a martyrium to the incident of Prophet Mohammad’s life that

marked his journey to the heavens (Grabar, 35-37). Grabar himself

attributes the Dome as a monument commemorating Islam’s triumph

over the preceding religions of Judaism and Christianity,

consequently granting it the status of a symbol of conquest, as

analyzed by Leisten who, when writing about monuments of victory

in Islam, quotes Grabar’s conclusions as drawn from the writings

inside the Dome, the most notable of which are verses from the

Quran in which “Christian trinity is repeatedly refuted and the

divinity of Jesus is denied” (Leisten, 15). This can be viewed as

a clear victory of Islam over the preexisting Christian influence

in Jerusalem. It is important to emphasize however, that whether

one critically views the Dome as a martyrium as suggested by ibn

Ishaq, or as a victory monument as proposed by Grabar, its

commemorative function is reinforced.

A a m i r 4

The Dome of the Rock is not the only commemorative monument

likely to be a symbol of historical triumph; in fact, victories

in wars were often eulogized by constructing isolated minarets.

Leisten attributes this to the social and political factors of

the time that made it necessary that the “claim to power and

leadership of individuals or groups required authentication..”

(Leisten, 7), making it imperative for the vanquishing to

symbolize their success. The evidence for these victory minarets

exists, not only in the form of architectural monuments, but can,

in fact, also be found in some very important and famous literary

works. Leisten quotes the example of the Sasanian King Bahram

Chobin in Firdawsi’s Shahnameh who is “credited with having

erected a victory tower by piling up the skulls of beheaded

enemies after he won a battle” (Leisten, 14). This brings forth

the paramount presence of symbolism in Islamic architecture,

which allows one to draw parallels between architectural motifs

and the purpose they aim to serve, especially when viewed as

dedicatory emblem. Although the central function of minarets is

assumed to be the call to prayer, the construction of isolated

A a m i r 5

minarets, not as a part of a mosque, allows for their strictly

dedicatory attribution.

A similar attribution is made by Nuha N. N. Khoury, who studies a

particular type of mihrab which she describes as being “flat or

two-dimensional” with “frequently incorporate[d] depictions of

lamps” (Khoury, 11). She analyzes these mihrabs as “not related

to mosque niche mihrabs”, and drawing on their context and

periodic appearance on tombstones and shrines, ascribes them as

being related to “death and eschatology”. This brings forth the

function of commemorative buildings as an avenue to memorialize

the dead, with the mihrabs also providing an apparatus to

commemorate the donors, whose names are usually carved along. An

example of a mihrab donation can be seen in the form of the

Mihrab of Lady Jum’a who commissioned it for the shrine of Shaykh

Fathi, in thirteenth century Mosul (Khoury, 16). These mihrabs

are seen consistently on tombs, shrines, and mausoleums, marked

with Quranic inscriptions echoing the resonance of death, along

with the names of the donors, allowing them to serve as memorable

on more than one front. The use of these flat, two-dimensional

mihrabs in funerary architecture survives into the world of

A a m i r 6

illustrations, just as the isolated, commemorative minarets.

Khoury turns to the Shahnameh to elucidate the use of lamps,

which are central to these mihrab inscriptions, as “part of the

imagery of death” (Khoury, 19) through the illustration of

Alexander’s bier, which provides “all the elements of a

commemorative mihrab image” (Khoury, 19).

The core function of celebratory architecture can hence be seen

to vary from funerary to victory commemoration, with colossal

symbolism serving both religious and political impetuses. Motifs

in structure and form allow the memorial functions of these very

symbols to transcend three dimensions, as seen in illustrations,

allowing them to encapsulate their intended purpose through all

agencies.

The second part of this paper focuses on patronage. More

specifically, it analyzes the patronage and regional

architectural style of the Ayyubid period which, although a short

rule of about ninety years from 1170-1260, resulted in tremendous

construction and building, accruing to an era of economic

prosperity. A validation of their progressive stance when it came

A a m i r 7

to architectural development can be provided by the examples of

women patrons who contributed greatly to the anatomic growth.

Along with that, the Ayyubids ensured the establishment of

madrasas in order to preach and establish the dominance of Sunni

Muslims against the Shi’i threat, which again leads to the

recognition that commemorative structures have historically

served political and ideological purposes, contrary to their mere

memorial status.

Analyzing the role of women as patrons, Humphreys stresses that

between 1174 and 1260, Damascus “witnessed the most intense and

sustained patronage of religious architecture by women”

(Humphreys, 35). He quotes the example of Dayfa Khatun, who was

credited with the building of Madrasat al-Firdaws: “the most

impressive madrasa built by any Ayyubid ruler in Syria”. What is

important to note here, is that female patronage focused on three

types of buildings: madrasas, Sufi hospices, and mausolea

(Humphreys, 36), with mausolea serving as the primary

manifestation of commemorative architecture. An example to quote

here can be one of the Mausoleum of Salih Najm al-Din Ayyub

(1250), commissioned by Shajarat al-Durr (Yalman). Although

A a m i r 8

female patronage during the Ayyubid rule marks a historical

point, especially considering the absence of women from the

central political sphere in Islam, it is important to emphasize

that the women who were able to adjunct even during this time

were few and prudent, since their social strata and family status

contributed a great deal to their contingency as patrons.

Dayfa Khatun, who built the Madrasat al-Firdaws, was an

influential woman who “independently ruled Aleppo for nearly 20

years”, and her intention for the madrasa was to create a “royal

mausoleum” (Takieddine, Abd al-Ghafour), which is achieved

chiefly through the monumental inscriptions that encircle the

entire interior of the building. Similarly, Shajarat al-Durr, who

commissioned the Mausoleum of Salih Najm al Din Ayyub, was also a

woman of influential standing, being the wife of Salih al-Din,

and one to have “ruled with the first of the Mamluk sultans”

(Dunn). One of the defining features of Salih al-Din’s mausoleum

is the minaret that rises above the entrance block: it is the

“only remaining intact minaret of the Ayyubid dynasty” (Torky).

Although the use of minaret in this structure is not as a victory

symbol, it is important to stress on the value of this component

A a m i r 9

of commemorative architecture, as it allows for an intrinsic

celebratory function, depicted by its grand appearance. Most

female patrons of the Ayyubid rule that have contributed to the

commemorative architecture of the time are seen to be women with

relatively high social prestige, which is expected as Humphreys

points out, “only a very small number [of women] were in a

position to do so” (Humphreys, 36).

Ayyubid rule, albeit short lived, has produced remarkable

commemorative structures, one of the most notable of which is

Imam al-Shafi’s mausoleum. Al Shafi’s mausoleum was first

constructed by Saladin and then reconstructed by al-Kamil about

thirty years later. The building is significant till date for a

number of reasons, an important one being its significance as a

representation of a paradigm shift in funerary architecture, with

its initial construction by Saladin instigating the “creation of

a new ritual center” (Mulder, 15), followed by al Kamil’s

modification which included the crowning of the tomb with a large

dome, which is “perhaps also connected with the movement of the

cemetery northward” (Mulder, 19). Although the building is

clearly a commemorative one, striving to serve as a funerary

A a m i r 10

monument of an immensely prestigious personality, there seem to

remain quite a few political and ideological influences,

especially with the advent of Fatimids: the threat of a Shi’i

dynasty. Although al-Shafi’s tomb was sacred since before

Saladin’s construction of the mausoleum, the monument in itself

helped in serving purposes other than the mere preservation of

the grave, one of which was the continuation of the

indoctrination of the Sunni beliefs through the use of the

Madrassa constructed adjacent to the Mausoleum, known as the

Salahiyya Madrasa, which “became the most prestigious in Egypt

during the Ayyubid period” (Mulder, 20).

Commemorative architecture has remained historically significant

since before the advent of Islamic architecture, however, it has

served various purposes within the realm of Islamic art, notably

by proving to be capable of honoring and preserving memories,

events, and personalities of varying circumstances by emphasizing

on varying symbols and motifs. Along with that, it has proven to

encapsulate multiple dimensions of memorial parables, where a

commemorative building not only plays its celebratory function,

but also plays a historic function in its usefulness, especially

A a m i r 11

when it comes to the marking of dates, names of patrons, names of

donors, etc. These constructions allow for an in depth analysis

of the political, social, ideological, and economic conditions of

the time by drawing on the influences that had crept into the

structures and forms of these buildings. Commemorative

architecture, as a phenomenon, epitomizes the symbolic

representation of whatever it may be that is deemed as worthy of

honoring and preserving, which is why the history of Islamic art

witnesses an array of such monuments, with each structure

reflecting the influence of its patronage and its regional

monumental style.

A a m i r 12

Work Cited

Dunn, Jimmy writing as Ismail Abaza. The Madrasa and Mausoleum of Al-Salih Najm Al-Din Ayyub (Al Salihiyya) In Islamic Cairo, Egypt. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.

Grabar, Oleg. "The Umayyad Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem." Ars

Orientalis. Vol. 3. N.p.: Freer Gallery of Art, The

Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art,

U of Michigan, 1959. N. pag. Print.

Humphreys, R Stephen. 1994. Women as Patrons of Religious

Architecture in Ayyubid Damascus. In Muqarnas XI: An Annual on

Islamic Art and Architecture. Gülru Necipoglu (ed.). Leiden:

E.J. Brill.

Khoury, Nuha N.N. 1992. The Mihrab Image: Commemorative Themes in

Medieval Islamic Architecture. In Muqarnas IX: An Annual on

A a m i r 13

Islamic Art and Architecture. Oleg Grabar (ed.). Leiden:

E.J. Brill.

Leisten, Thomas. "Mashhad Al-Nasr: Monuments of War and Victory

in Medieval Islamic Art." The Encyclopaedia of Islam. N.p.: BRILL,

1996. N. pag. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Part 157. H. A. R. Gibb, E. Van

Donzel, P. J. Bearman, J. Van Lent. Web.

Mulder, Stephennie. 2006. The Mausoleum of Imam al-Shafi'i. In

Muqarnas: An Annual on the Visual Culture of the Islamic

World, XXIII, 15-46.

Takieddine, Zena, Samer Abd al-Ghafour “Madrasat al-Firdaws” in

Discover Islamic Art. Place: Museum With No Frontiers, 2015.

Web.

http://www.discoverislamicart.org/database_item.php?

id=monument;ISL;sy;Mon01;4;en

Torky, Tarek “Madrasa of al-Salih Najm al-Din Ayyub” in Discover

Islamic Art. Place: Museum With No Frontiers, 2015. Web.

http://www.discoverislamicart.org/database_item.php?

id=monument;ISL;eg;Mon01;7;en

Yalman, Suzan. “The Art of the Ayyubid Period (ca. 1171-1260)”.

In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan

Museum of Art, 2000

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ayyu/hd_ayyu.htm (October

2001)

A a m i r 14

A a m i r 15

List of Images

Fig 1. Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem 691 AD. Abd al-Malik.

Fig 2. Inscriptions inside Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem 691 AD.

Abd al-Malik.

Fig 3. Bier of Alexander, Shahnameh. Ilkhanid period. Tabriz,

Iran. c.1330-1335.

Fig 4. Mosul, Shaykh Fathi. Mihrab of Lady Jum’a, 13th century.

(illustration from “The Mihrab Image” Fig 7)

Fig 5. Madrasat al Firdawsi, Aleppo 1235-1236/ 633 AH.

Ayyubid. (picture from Creswell Archive, Ashmolean Museum).

Fig 6. Mausoleum of Salih Najm al-Din Ayyub, Cairo 1243-1249/

641-647 AH. Ayyubid. (picture from Creswell Archive, Ashmolean

Museum).

Fig 7. Al- Shafi’s mausoleum, Cairo 1211/ 607-608 AH, restored

1772/ 1185-1186 AH. Ayyubid. (picture from Creswell Archive,

Ashmolean Museum).

A a m i r 16

Appendix 1

Fig 1. The Dome of the Rock.

Fig 2. Inscriptions on the inside of the Dome of the Rock

A a m i r 17

Fig 3. The Bier of Alexander in Shahnameh

Fig 4. Mihrab of Lady Jum’a

A a m i r 18

Fig 5. Madrasat al-Firdawsi

A a m i r 19

Fig 6. Mausoleum of Salih Najm al-Din Ayyub

Fig 7. Mausoleum of Imam al-Shafi