The Image of the Mosque

News from far-away: Cologne's city council recently voted to allow construction to proceed on what will be Europe's largest mosque. In itself, it's an interesting piece of news, but there's also a personal element to the story, as I first read about the story some point a little more than a year ago. The debate about the mosque's construction - and in particular, the terms of that debate - worked their way into some things I'd been turning over in my head.

To quote from a recent article in the English-language edition of Der Spiegel:

Cologne's skyline is not just any skyline. Silhouetted against the sky is the cathedral, the most famous gothic church in Germany. After a decision by Cologne's city council, it will be joined by the country's largest mosque.

As I read it, this is as much a debate about aesthetics and architecture as it is a debate about cultural identity and religious tolerance in Germany. That question of the skyline suggests the question of landscape; more precisely, it might be question of view. The issue, one might say, is not so much the construction of a mosque in Germany; it's the construction of a mosque, whose silhouette has become such a potent symbol of Islam, in close proximity to Cologne's Gothic cathedral, itself an iconic "European" silhouette. For those interested in the whole thesis of the clash of civilizations (reductive drivel that it is), the situation suggests a visual re-staging of the whole process.

Included in the article is a computer-generated image of the mosque:
Having read very little about the whole discussion, I have a couple of immediate thoughts. First, and perhaps most importantly, is the issue of the dome as an architectural motif. Although the dome has come to be one of the architectural motifs of the mosque, I might argue that it isn't essential in any way. One of the striking things about Islamic architecture, I think, is the way in which it has historically adopted the architectural vernaculars of whatever culture it has interacted with. Early Islamic architecture (itself a problematic grouping) was distinguished by its interaction with Byzantine basilicas in the Levant and Zoroastrian temples in Iran. Both interactions were to leave a lasting impression on the architecture of the mosque.

Thinking a bit more particularly about Ottoman architecture, I think there's a strong argument to be made for the evolution in imperial mosques following the Ottoman capture of Constantinople. Prior to that conquest, Ottoman mosques tended to be built upon a traditionally Selcuk plan; following their capture of the Byzantine capital, however, Ottoman mosques - and the imperial mosques in particular - had to in some sense respond to the challenge of the Hagia Sophia.

What's fascinating to think about is the precise nature of the challenge. The Hagia Sophia boasts one of the largest free-standing domes in the world, and one might easily see the Sultanahmet (also known as the Blue Mosque) as an architectural rejoinder to the Byzantine building. Every successive imperial mosque - or at the very least, every imperial mosque along the hills of the Old City - after the Ottoman conquest includes a dome. And while that motif has in some sense become typical, I think it's important to understand precisely how the dome is not an essentially Islamic form (in the way that, I think, no architectural motif need be essentially anything).

That said, I think it makes the decision to design a mosque that includes a prominent dome all the more significant. If the Sultanahmet responded to the architectural (and specifically visual) challenge of the Hagia Sophia, it's interesting that this mosque doesn't seem to gesture at all in the direction of Cologne's Gothic cathedral that stands across the river from this mosque's proposed site.

The proposed image of the mosque also suggests an interesting question about use and inhabitation. The Der Spiegel article mentions that the Muslim community of Cologne is currently using an abandoned factory as their mosque right now; and as far as I know, there is no religious reason to favor one over the other. The issue seems to be both aesthetic and functional. In a very real and material way, I'm sure that the current factory is not the most conducive space for worship. At the same time, there may also be an issue in that the factory doesn't call attention to itself as a house of worship. It doesn't look the part.

I'm just inclined to wonder how much the proposed plans for the mosque are concerned with the image of Islam and not with its practice.

As perhaps a final note about image and use, form and content, a quick story about the construction of the Suleymaniye Camii in Istanbul. I've been told that during its construction, the Sultan stormed onto the grounds demanding an explanation for the slow progress. Stepping inside the unfinished mosque, he found Sinan lounging on his side, pulling slowly from a nargile, watching the smoke drift upwards into the wide dome. The Sultan accused Sinan of shirking his duties as Chief Architect. Sinan, never pausing his routine, calmly told the Sultan he was making sure that the smoke was leaving the proper window.

And so it was: Because the mosque was at one time lit only by candles, all of the smoke and soot rose to the domed ceiling; there, air currents pushed everything in the direction of a small alcove, where the soot would collect on the walls. Attendants would then scrape the walls of soot and fashion ink for the Sultan's manuscripts.

From what I understand, the Sultan was pleased with Mimar Sinan's work.