Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:45:49.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The origins of the Mihrāb Mujawwaf: A Reinterpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Estelle Whelan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the publication of Edward Said's Orientalism in 1978, every Western student of the Near East, regardless of his or her position in the ensuing debate, has been forced to examine afresh the assumptions underlying even the most respected historical studies. As far as the first century of Islam is concerned, a significant contradiction emerges from such reexamination. Although the reliance of the Muslim conquerors on indigenous administrative classes, their continuation for some time of pre-Islamic coin tupes, and their acceptance of late antique material culture in general are commonly recognized, the conclusion ususally drawn from these facts is rather a curious one: that the Arabs, entirely lacking in experience of government and distinctive material culture, were forced to adopt the essentially alien practices taht prevalied in the conquered lands.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , May 1986 , pp. 205 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

Author's note: The following abbreviations are used throughout: Caetani: L. Caetani, Annali dell'Islam (10 vols.; Milan: 1905–1926) EI: The Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden: 1913–1938; 2nd ed., Leiden: 1960) EMA: K. A. C. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture (2 vols.; Oxford: 1932–1940; 2nd ed. of vol. I, in 2 parts, Oxford: 1969) Sauvaget: J. Sauvaget, La mosquée omeyyade de Médine (Paris: 1947) I wish to acknowledge debts of gratitude to Chris Filstrup and his staff in the Oriental Division of the New York Public Library for their cheerful and unstinting assistance with many aspects of the research embodied here; to Professor Pierre Cachia for help in deciphering some of the more opaque passages of al-Samhūdī; and to Judith Kolbas, Professor Richard Martin, and Dr. Richard Verdery, whose comments on an earlier draft contributed significantly to shaping the final version.

1 In later periods subsidiary mihrābs might also appear on the qiblah wall, on columns or piers in the sanctuary, in the porticos of the courtyard, and on the exterior facade.

2 For documentation of this tradition back to the ninth century, see Sauvaget, pp. 15–19. His hypothesis that ibn Duqmāq, ibn Taghrībirdī, and al-Suyūtī drew their reports from the copy of a manuscript by ibn Sa'īd in the Dār al-Kutub, Cairo, cannot be confirmed from the fragmentary remains of the manuscript, but the other aspects of his reconstruction still stand. See ibn Sa'īd, al-Mughrib fī hūla'l-Maghrib, ed. by Hasan, Z. M. (Cairo, 1953);Google Scholar and EMA 1(1)2, 147–148.

3 Fraenkel, S., Die aramäischen Fremdwörter im Arabischen (Leiden, 1886), p. 274;Google ScholarSchwally, F., “Zur ältesten Baugeschichte der Moschee des 'Amr in Alt-Kairo,” Strassburger Festschrift zur XLVI, Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner (Strassburg, 1901), p. 110, n. 4;Google ScholarHorovitz, J., “Bemerkungen zur Geschichte und Terminologie des islamischen Kultus,” Der Islam, 16 (1927), 261–262;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Sauvaget, p. 145, n. 6.

4 Praetorius, F., “äthiopische Etymologien,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 61 (1907), 261–262;Google ScholarNöldeke, T., Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft (Strassburg: 1910), p. 52, n. 3;Google ScholarSerjeant, R. B., “Mihrāb,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 22 (1959), 441–444;Google ScholarRhodokanakis, M., “Zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 25 (1911), 74–76.Google Scholar See also Ghūl, M. A., “Was the Ancient South Arabian Mdqnt the Islamic Mihrāb?” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 25 (1962), 331–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It has also been suggested that, as the term “mihrāb” has parallels in Old Testament Hebrew and other Semitic dialects, it was probably not a loan word in Arabic. See Daiches, S., “The Meaning of,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 20 (1908), 637–639;CrossRefGoogle Scholar see also Nöldeke, loc. cit., and Serjeant, p. 441.

5 Horovitz, pp. 260–263; Serjeant, pp. 451–452; see also Serjeant's translation from Tāj al-'arūs, pp. 439–441.

6 Sauvaget, p. 145, n. 4.

7 Serjeant, pp. 447–453.

8 In connection with the functioning of the mihrāb as a niche for a statue, it should be noted that in Arabia in late antiquity such niches were commonly placed in facades between columns supporting a variety of broken pediments, as was characteristic of the Roman scena frons, for example. See Bieber, M., The History of the Greek and Roman Theater (Princeton: 1961), especially pp. 208–211,Google Scholar where examples in the Near East are discussed; and Hanson, J. A., Roman Theater Temples (Princeton: 1959),Google Scholar esp. chap. 4. Particularly relevant is the famous Hercules clock of early sixthcentury Gaza, which Diels reconstructed from the fairly detailed description by Procopius. If the reconstruction is correct, three statues of Hercules that adorned the clock were sheltered under columned aedicules; Diels, H., “Über die von Prokop beschriebene Kunstuhr von Gaza,” Abhandlungen der Königlich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 7 (1917).Google Scholar

9 Fehérv´ri, G., “Tombstone or Mihrab? A Speculation,” Islamic Art in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, ed. by Ettinghausen, R. (New York: 1972), pp. 241–254.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., p. 250.

11 Horovitz, p. 260. Fehérvári, p. 250, copied Horovitz's translation incorrectly.

12 Fehérvári, p. 250. “Udhaynah” is the Arabic version of “Odenatus,” the name of the ruler of Palmyra (Tadmur) who was killed in about A.D. 267.

13 Gawlikowski, M., Monuments funéraires de Palmyre (Warsaw, 1970)Google Scholar. According to Gawlikowski, p. 51, in the second century the funerary temple replaced the tomb tower in the preference of leading Palmyrene families; from then on it constituted the sole type of surface funerary monument (as distinct from the commercially operated hypogea) constructed until the fall of Palmyra in 272 (pp. 172–176).

14 Ibid., pp. 129–146, 51.

15 Fehérvári, p. 254, n. 67, has, however, promised a book, The Origin of the Mihrab and Its Development Down to the 14th Century, in which a more detailed presentation of his tombstone theory is to be expected.

16 Horovitz, p. 261; Nöldeke, p. 52, n. 3; Sauvaget, p. 145; Serjeant, pp. 439–444. The verses are 3:38–40, 19:2, 34:14, 38:22.

17 EMA 1(1)2, 61, 139–141; 11,211–213,221,308–314.

18 Al-Balādhurī, , Futūh al-buldān, ed. by de Goeje, M. J. (Leiden, 1866), pp. 229–230.Google Scholar Creswell reported that “the site of the mosque (or of the mihrāb)” had supposedly been indicated to 'Uqbah in a dream. The word used by al-Balādhurī was masjid, however. The earliest source in which the “mihrāb” is mentioned is Abū 'bayd al-Bakrī's al-Masālik wa'l-mamālik, written in 460/1067–1068; see de Slane, W. M., al-Maghrib fi dhikr bilād Ifrīqiyah wa'l-Maghrib (Algiers, 1857), pp. 22–23.Google Scholar The anonymous author of Kitāb al-istibsār, compiled in 587/1191, reported a different version of 'Uqbah's dream, in which the mihrāb is said to have been established; he appears to have taken this story from ibn al-Raqīq (d. after 418/1027–1028), whose work is now lost. See Abdel-Hamīd, S. Z., ed., Kitāb al-istibsār fī 'ajā'ib al-amsār (Alexandria, 1958), p. 114.Google Scholar This version is the one reported in the later sources mentioned by Creswell, EMA 1(1)2, 61, n. 7.

19 De Slane, pp. 22–24. According to E. Lévi-Provençal, in his article on al-Bakrī in El2, the chronicler's basic source of information on Ifrīqiyah, which he never visited, was the lost al-Masālik wa'l-mamālik of al-Warrāq, who had migrated from Kairouan to Córdoba in the time of al-Hakam 11(350–366/961–976), but there is no specific citation in the text where these events are reported. See also de Slane's introduction.

20 Marçais, G., Manuel d'art musulman, vol. I (Paris, 1926), 22; and EMA II, 308.Google Scholar

21 Dalman, K. O., Neue Petra-Forschungen und der heilige Felsen von Jerusalem (Leipzig, 1912), p. 128, fig. 81;Google ScholarEMA 1(1)2, 100, fig. 374 (following p. 308), II, p1. 120a; Propyläen Kunstgeschichte, 2nd ed., vol. IV (Berlin, 1973), fig. 22.

22 EMA 1(1)2, fig. 35 (facing p. 114); Welch, A., Calligraphy in the Arts of the Muslim World (New York and Austin, 1979), p. 45.Google Scholar

23 EMA 2, pl. 101b.

24 Ibid., pp. 335–336, 348–349, pl. 122. Creswell pointed out that the lining of the latter mihrāb belongs to Lājīn's restoration of 696' 1296.

25 Ibid., pl. 119e.

26 Ibid., p. 100.

27 Herzfeld, E., “Die Genesis der islamischen Kunst und das Mshatta-Problem,” Der Islam, vol. I (1910), 42, fig. 5.Google Scholar

28 EMA 11, p1. 88a, top right.

29 Ibid., 1(1)2, 100. There is an additional Küfic inscription on the three outer sides of the niche frame, but it has not yet been deciphered, nor do the published photographs permit close analysis of the paleography.

30 The relevant inscriptions occur in and above the eastern niche and above the western niche on the first platform, EMA II, pls. 80d, 81a–b, and pp. 296–304; see also Flury, S., Islamische Schrftbänder Amida-Diarbekr XI. Jahrhundert (Basel and Paris: 1920), pl. IA.Google Scholar

31 See Catalogue générale du Musée Arabe du Caire: Stèlesfunépraires (10 vols.; Cairo: 1932–1942). The stele of Yahya ibn Hammād of 243/857 is no. 469 (inv. no. 1271), p. 35 and p1. XII in vol. II (1936).

32 EMA II, pl. 121d. This mihrāb belonged to a chapel mosque contained in House II, a large villa excavated in the southern portion of old Sāmarrā in the 1930s; see Iraq Government Department Origins of Antiquities, Excavations at Samarra 1936–1939, vol. I. Architecture and Mural Decoration (Baghdad, 1940), 14, pl. LVII.

33 Cf. Flury, , “Das Schriftband an der Türe des Mahmād von Ghazna (998–1030),” Der Islam, vol. 8 (1918), 216–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 al-Hakam, Ibn 'Abd, Futūh Misr, ed. by Torrey, C. C. (New Haven, 1922), pp. 238–239; the source for both versions was ibn 'Ufayr (146–226/764–841).Google Scholar

35 For the citations, see EMA 1(1)2, 150, n. I. The earliest source mentioned by Creswell is Murtadī (or Murtadā) ibn al-'Afīf, a contemporary of the Ayyūbid al-Malik al-Kāmil (615–635/1218–1238). Unfortunately, the Arabic text is lost, and the only version known is a French translation made in the seventeenth century. There it is said that, according to “several authors,” the first who installed a jubé voúté [sic] in the Mosque of 'Amr ibn a1-'ās was Qurrah ibn Sharīkh; Vattier, P., trans., L'égypte de Múrtadi fils dú Gaphiphe (Paris, 1666; reprint ed. by G. Wiet, Paris, 1953), pp. 253–254.Google Scholar Although the text is somewhat garbled—whether through the fault of the copyist of the lost manuscript or of the translator it is impossible to say—one of these authors can be identified as al-Hārith ibn Miskīn (d. 250/865), a qādī of Egypt; see Vattier, reprint ed., p. 130, and Guest, R., ed., The Governors and Judges of Egypt or Kitāb al-Umarā' (el- Wulāh) wa Kitāb el-Qudāh of el-Kindā (Leiden and London, 1912), p. 25.Google ScholarDuqmāq, Ibn, Kitāb al-intisār li-wāsitah 'iqd al-amsār, ed. by Vollers, K., vol. I (Cairo, 1893), 62,Google Scholar cited only the thirteenth-century author ibn Al-Maqrīzī, Sa'īd, Kitāb al-mawā'iz wa'l-i-'tibār bi dhikr al-khitat wa'l-athār, vol. 2 (Bulaq, 1853), 247,Google Scholar relied on 'Abdullāh ibn Lahī'ah (69–174/715–791), who quoted from “our sheikhs.” Taghrībirdī, Ibn, al-Nujūm al-zāhirah fi mulūk mulūk Misr wa'l-Qāhirah, ed. by Juynboll, T. O. J. and Matthes, B. F., vol. I (Leiden, 1855–1857), 76,Google Scholar and al-Suyutī, Kitāb husn al-muhadarah fi akhāar Misr wa'l-Qāhīrah, vol. 2 (Cairo, 1860), 135, cited both ibn Lahī'ah and al-Layth ibn Sa'd (94–175/713–792), considered a much more reliable source; Guest, pp. 29–32. The ultimate authorities for the story are thus these two figures, both members of the generation immediately following the reported event. According to Sauvaget, pp. 17–18, the medium through which their information was most probably transmitted was Akhbār masjid ahl al-rayah al-a'zam, a history of the Mosque of 'Amr ibn al'Ās written by al-Kindī (283–350/897–961); it is now lost. See also Guest, p. 9.

36 Sauvaget, p. 148.

37 See ibn Duqmāq, 1, 64, where the discussion ends with the expression “according to al-Kindī” The source was thus probably the lost history of the mosque cited n. 35 supra; see also Guest, p. 9.

38 Al-Maqrīzī, II, 249. The expression “according to al-Kindī” was, however, omitted both here and from ibn Taghrībirdī's similar account, 1, 79. Al-Suyūtī did not include the story at all, despite Creswell's reference, EMA 1(1)2, 150, nn. 1–2.

39 Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam, p. 131; the source seems to have been either Yahyā ibn Bukayr (c. 155–231/772–846) or ibn 'Ufayr. According to Guest, pp. 55–56, the traditions of ibn Bukayr reported by al-Kindī in another work, Kitāb al-umarā', all go back to al-Layth ibn Sa'd or, less often, to ibn Lahī'ah. Ibn 'Ufayr's range of sources was much broader.

40 There may have been a mihrāb even in the earliest mosque on this site, for al-Dīnawarī (d. 281–282/894–895 or before 290/902–903) reported, without naming a source, that the Khārijite assassin 'Abdullah ibn Malik al-Saydawī stationed himself in front of the mihrāb when he made his attempt on the governor in 40/661; see al-Dīnawarī, , Akhbār al-tiwāl, ed. by Guirgass, V. (Leiden, 1888), pp. 217–218.Google Scholar For skeptical assessments of the reliability of this report, see “Ibn Muldjam” and “Khāridjites” in El2.

41 This Ka'b was most probably Ka'b ibn Ju'ayl al-Taghlabī (d. after 59/679), an intimate of Mu'īwiyah whose poetic works were quoted several times by ibn al-Faqīh. Another possibility is Ka'b ibn al-Malik (d. 50 or 53/670 or 673), a partisan of the Quraysh who transmitted ahādīth to ibn Hishām and al-Wāqidī through his sons 'Abdullāh and 'Abd al-Rahmān.

42 This quotation has been drawn from an unpublished manuscript of ibn Shākir (d. 764/1363), 'uyūn al-tawārīkh, Ar. 638, Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris, translated in Quatremére, M., Histoire des sultans mamlouks de l'égypre, vol. II (Paris, 1842), part 1, 262–263.Google Scholar Ibn 'ASākir is cited as the source, and indeed the same story appears in the fragment of his Ta'rīkh madīnah Dimashq preserved in Berlin, also unpublished; see Caetani, vol. III, part I, 384. It does not occur, however, in important copies of ibn 'Asākir's manuscript preserved in Damascus and Cairo. See Munajjid, S., ed., Ta'rīkh madīnah Dimashq, vol. II, part I (Damascus, 1934);Google ScholarElisséeff, N., trans., La description de Damas d'lbn 'Asākir (Damascus, 1959)Google Scholar;and Ta'rīkh Taymur 1041, Dār al-Kutub, Cairo. The authoris grateful to Sam Gellens for the information that the last is a copy of the autograph manuscript preserved in the library of al-Azhar University. Another anecdote from ibn 'Asākir is also pertinent. He cited his teacher al-Akfānī (d. 524'1129) as one source for a report that, when al-Walīd personally launched the demolition of the Christian church in the temenos at Damascus, he set up a ladder against the misrāb of the altar; Munajjid, vol. II, p. 20; Ta'rīkh Taymur 1041, vol. 11, pp. 21–22. Even though this report does not seem to be supported by early tradition, it is worth noting the use of the term “mihrab,” which certainly referred in this instance to an apse. It seems a mistake, however, to assume that it necessarily referred to the apse form; rather, in view of the situation at the mosque of 'Amr ibn al'ās, it is more likely that it designated a space in which certain functions were performed.

43 See n. 19 supra.

44 For example, see Sauvaget, pp. 150–151; EMA 1(1)2, 43; Rogers, J. M., The Spread of Islam (London: 1976), pp. 144–145.Google Scholar See also al-Bayhaqī, Abū Bakr Ahmad, Kirāb al-sunan al-kubrā, vol. III (Hyderabad, 1929–1930), 109–110;Google Scholar and Khaldūn, ibn, Muqaddimah, ed. by Quatremère, M., vol. III (Paris, 1858), 62–63. Some of the ideas about the maqsūrah incorporated here, along with accompanying references, are owing to J. Marquardt, who presented them in a graduate seminar on the development of the early mosque conducted by the author at the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1978.Google Scholar

45 Al-Samhūdī, , Kitāb wafā' al-wafā bi akhbār Dār al-Mustafā, vol. 1 (Cairo, 1908), 362, gave several sources for this report, including Mālik ibn Anas (95–179/715–795), ibn Zabālah (writing in 199/814), and 'Umar ibn Shabbah (172–262/789–876). Ibn Zabālah relied in part on descendants of al-Sā'ib ibn Khabbāb, who had been in charge of the work on the maqsūrah.Google Scholar

46 The texts related to this sequence of events seem, at first glance, to be much more confused and contradictory than the account given here suggests, especially reflecting uncertainty whether it was Mu'āwiyah or Marwān who first adopted the maqsūrah; see, for example, ibn Khaldūn, II, 62; and al-Samhūdī, 1, 362–363. It is relatively easy to sort out these apparent contradictions, however. Al-Balādhurī, p. 6; al-Tabarī, , Ta'rīkh al-rusūl wa'l-mulūk, ed. by de Goeje, M. J., 2e série, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1879–1901), 70;Google Scholar ibn al-Athīr, , al-Kāmil fi'l-ta'rīkh, vol. III (Beirut, 1965), 446;Google Scholar and ibn Taghrībirdī, 1, 141, all reported that the first maqsūrah in the Great Mosque at Medina had been established by Marwan in 44/665. Al-Ya'qūbī, , Ta'rīkh, M. T. Houtsma, vol. II (Leiden, 1883), 265,Google Scholar ascribed the responsibility to Mu'āwiyah. The former was, however, governor on behalf of the latter, and there is thus no real contradiction here. Of all the authors cited only al-Samhūdī named his authorities: the most relevant were Mālik ibn Anas, ibn Shabbah, and Yahyā ibn al-Husayn (d. 277/890), the last relying on 'Abd al-Hakīm ibn 'Abdallāh ibn Hantab, who has so far eluded identification. Al-Mubarrad, al-Kiāb al-kāmil, ed. by W. Wright, (vol. II; n.p.: n.d. [1865–1874]), 553–553; al-Dīnawarī, pp. 217–218; al-Faqīh, ibn, Kiiāb al-buldān, ed. by de Goeje, M. J., 2nd ed. (Leiden, 1967), p. 109;Google Scholar al-Tabarī, l' série, VI, 3465; ibn al-Athīr, III, 446; ibn Taghrībirdī, I, 141; and al-Samhūdī, 1, 363, also reported that Mu'āwiyah had installed a maqsūrah in Damascus; most of them indicated the date 40/661.

47 Al-Mas'ūdī, , Les prairies d'or, ed. and trans. by de Meynard, C. Barbier, vol. V (Paris, 1861–1877), 74.Google Scholar

48 Al-Balādhurī, , Ansāb al-Ashraf, V (Jerusalem, 1936), 311, on the authority of Hisham ibn al-Kalbī(c. 120–204 or 206/737–819 or 821).Google Scholar

49 Al-Balādhurī, Futūh, p. 348, on the authority of al-Walīd ibn Hishām ibn Qahdham, who has not yet been identified.

50 There may even have been a maqsūrah in the first mosque at al-Fustāt. Al-Maqrīzī, II, 247 (on the authority of Muhammad ibn Salāmah al-Qudādī, d. 454/1062); ibn Duqmāq, 1, 63; and ibn Taghrībirdī, 1, 76–77, described an incident that occurred during the governorship of Maslamah ibn Mukhallad (47–62/663–682), who enlarged the mosque in 53/673: The head of the shurtah, a man named Abū'l-Husayn S'īd ibn 'Annān (or 'Uthmān), was said to have died suddenly while standing behind the maqsūrah to lead the prayers. Ibn Taghrībirdī noted, however, that some people did not accept this story. Abū'l-Husayn Sa'īd was not mentioned among the three men who served as director of the shurtah under Maslamah; Guest, pp. 38–40.

51 Serjeant, pp. 448–449, has already recognized the relationship between the two but has drawn conclusions somewhat different from those presented here.

52 EMA I, 97–99; Sauvaget, pp. 7–23. For Creswell's response to Sauvaget's criticisms, see EMA 1(1)2, 142–149; Creswell's reconstructed plan is to be found on p. 146, fig. 7.

53 Sauvaget, pp. 7–39.

54 See, for example, “Mihrab,” El1 p. 485. Creswell proposed the Coptic haykal as a source, EMA 1(1)2, 148.

55 Sauvaget, pp. 122–157; the quotation, with Sauvaget's emphasis, is on p. 149.

56 Ibid., pp. 134–137.

57 This title was first adopted by 'Umar ibn al-Khattāb; for references, see “Amīr al-Mu'minīn,” El2, p. 445.

58 For the mosque at Medina, see Sa'd, Ibn: Biographien Muhammads, seiner Gefährten und der späteren Träger des Islams bis zum Jahre 230 der Fluchi, vol. III, part I, Biographien der mekkanischen Kämpfer Muhammads in der Schiachi bei Badr, ed. by Sachau, E. (Leiden, 1904–1940), 204;Google Scholar and Caetani, vol. 111, part 2, 965. The ultimate source was 'Abdullāh ibn lbrāhīm via 'Ali ibn Zayd (d. 131/747), Hammād ibn Salāmah (d. 169/784), and 'Affān ibn Muslim (169–232/784–846). 'Abdullāh was a resident of Medina and one of those said to have collected traditions from Abū Hurayrah; 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Azīz in turn is said to have heard traditions from 'Abdullāh, probably while serving as governor in Medina. No dates for 'Abdullāh are available, but, as Abū Hurayrah died in 59/678–679 and as 'Umar left Medina in 95/712 and died in 101/720, it can be concluded that he was active in the last quarter of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth. He thus belonged to the generation immediately following that of the event. The remaining members of the isnād all belonged to the intellectual circles of Basra, though some made their careers in Baghdad. The historian al-Balādhurī reported the same story, which, however, he attributed to the Caliph 'Uthmān 'Umar's successor; he did not mention his source, Futūh, p. 6. That the mosque of 'Amr ibn al-'ās was paved with pebbles before Maslamah laid down reed mats was reported by ibn al-'Afīf, ed. Wiet, p. 257, citing Amir ibn 'Umar as ultimate source; and al-Maqrīzī, 11, 248, citing 'Ābid ibn Hishām al-Azdī. The story of Ziyād's pebble floor at Basra is to be found in al-Balādhurī, Futūh, p. 277; and Yāqūt, , Kitāb mu'jam al-buldān, ed. by Wüstenfeld, F., vol. 1 (Leipzig: 1866–1870), 642–643.Google Scholar The source for the former was Abū 'Ubaydah Ma'mar ibn al-Muthanna of Basra (c. 110–209/c. 728–824), who had heard the story from “some people.” For Kufa, see al-Balādhurī, Futūh, pp. 276–277.

59 This story was reported by al-Samhfūdī, I, 385–386, relying ultimately on Abū Ghassān, who had personally examined and sketched Muhammad's tomb in 193/808–809, a century after the installation of the screen.

60 Sauvaget, p. 146; and Grabar, O., The Formation of Islamic Art (New Haven: 1973), p. 121.Google Scholar

61 Sauvaget, p. 149.

62 The following list has been compiled from EMA 1(2)2, where original excavation reports and related texts are cited:

63 Sauvaget, p. 153.

64 Ibid., pp. 154–155.

65 The most complete history of the Prophet's minbar at Medina is to be found in al-Samhūdī, 1, 274–288. Other references for early use of the minbar in the mosque were collected by Becker, C. H., “Die Kanzel im Kultus des alten Islam,” in Bezold, C., ed., Orienralische Studien, Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsren Geburistag, vol. I (Giessen: 1906), 331–351.Google Scholar See also Mielck, R., “Zur Geschichte der Kanzel in Islam,” Der Islam, 13 (1923), 109–112;Google Scholar and Meier, F., “Der Prediger auf der Kanzel (Minbar),” Siudien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Vorderen Orients: Festschrift für Bertold Spuler zum siebzigsten Geburistag, ed. by Roemer, H. R. and Noth, A. (Leiden, 1981), pp. 225–248. For the latter reference and several valuable suggestions the author is grateful to Professor J. van Ess; thanks are also owing to Professor G. Fehérvári for his helpful comments on this study.Google Scholar

66 For Mu'āwiyah, see al-Tabarī, Ie série, VI, 3255. For 'Alī, see al-Mubarrad, II, 550; al-Balādhurī in Caetani, X, 326; al-Harīrī, , Durrat al-Gawwās, ed. by Thorbecke, H. (Leipzig, 1871), p. 133;Google Scholar and al-Athīr, ibn, Usd al-ghābah fi ma'rfaj al-sahābah, vol. V (Cairo, 1869–1871), 96.Google Scholar

67 See ibn Duqmāq, 1, 63–64; al-Maqrīzī, II, 247; ibn Taghrībirdī, I, 78; and al-Qalqashandī, , Subh al-a'shā, vol. III (Cairo, 1914), 338.Google Scholar

68 Grabar, p. 121.

69 Al-Samhūdī, , Khulāsah al-wafā' bi akhbār Dār al-Mustafā (Būlāq, 1869), 114–115, 132, 135. Among the ultimate authorities cited are Mālik ibn Ānas, Khārijah ibn 'Abdallāh ibn Ka'b ibn Mālik, and Muhammad ibn 'Ammār on the authority of his grandfather, who had probably witnessed the reconstruction. Khārijah was a grandson of Ka'b ibn Mālik (see note 41 supra) and thus probably also a contemporary witness.Google Scholar

70 Sauvaget himself recognized the commemorative function of the mihrāb at Medina and implied similar connotations in discussion of the mosque in general, pp. 84, 111, 117–121, 155. Nevertheless, he interpreted the details cited here as factors limiting the size and functioning of the supposed throne apse, rather than as clues that would help to explain the adoption of the mihrāb mujawwaf.

71 The 'anazah was also carried before each of the first three caliphs and subsequently before the governors and imāms at Medina, where it remained until al-Mutawakkil had it brought to Sāmarrā in the ninth century. See al-Balādhurī, Ansāb, ff. 115v, 345r, quoted in al-Tabarī, Introductio, p. ccclxxx; al-Samhūdī, Wafā', 11, 2 (on the authority of al-Wāqidī, 130–207/747–823); al-Tabarī, 1e série, III, 1281; and al-Bukhārī, Sahīh, vol. 1, part 1 (Cairo, 1902), 106.

72 After this study had been substantially completed, the author was privileged to hear a paper by Dr. Klaus Brisch, read at the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Cairo on the occasion of its seventy-fifth anniversary in October 1982, in which he argued that portable wooden mihrībs of the Fītimid period were used to define the sutrah for individual worshipers. Considerations related to the sutrah may also have underlain the multiplication of mihrābs in single mosques and the adoption of mihrābs in private houses, both of which seem to have taken place in the late ninth century. For mihrābs on piers flanking the main aisle of the mosque of ibn Tūlun, Cairo, and an approximately contemporary example from the Great Mosque of Damascus, see EMA II, 349, 356, pl. 123a–c, fig. 257 facing p. 250. For mihrābs from a private house in al-Qatā'ī and a lavish residence in Sāmarrā, see EMA, II, 366, p1. 123d, and note 32 supra.

73 In the tenth century Rabbihī, ibn 'Abd, al-'lqd al-farīd, vol. IV (Cairo, 1935), 286,Google Scholar reported seeing a plank fastened to the top of the Prophet's minbar in the Great Mosque at Madīnah, to prevent anyone else from sitting there. It is difficult to date the inception of this practice, however. According to al-Samhūdī, Khulāsah, p. 120, Abū Bakr always positioned himself one step down from the top of the Prophet's stool, with his feet on the lower step, and 'Umar one step below that, with his feet on the ground; then 'Uthmān, in the seventh year of his caliphate, took his seat on the Origins of top. The ultimate source for this story was ibn 'Abd al-Zanād, who was born in Medina in 100/718 and died in 174/790 in Baghdād, presumably in the service of the 'Abbāsid court. It was repeated by a1-Yaāqūbī, II, 142, 157–158, 187. Caetani considered the report to be tendentious but noted that it can be taken to reflect popular views at the time of its initial circulation, III, 120, n. I; VII, 9–12 (see also Becker p. 235, n. 4). If he is correct, then the notion that Muhammad's own seat should be left vacant was already well established by the late eighth century (this interpretation is quite different from that offered by Caetani). In the same connection Meier, p. 236, has cited the early Iranian mystic al-Hakīm al-Tirmidhī(d. 285/898), who dreamed of following Muhammad as he climbed the minbar at Tirmidh and of sitting at his feet one step down from the top. There are numerous reports in the texts relating to the question of sitting and standing on the minbar, especially to changes in procedure introduced by Mu'āwiyah; the precise place on the minbar is rarely, if ever, mentioned, however. In this author's opinion, the fact that it seems not to have become an issue is an indication that the practice of leaving the top vacant was already well established in the time of Mu'āwiyah, who raised the minbar of the prophet on six additional steps. For references, see note 65 supra and “Minbar,” El 1. Nevertheless, as Meier has demonstrated in his thoroughly documented study, the custom of leaving the top of the minbar vacant seems never to have been officially prescribed and was ignored at Mecca on at least one important occasion before the twelfth century.

74 “Mihrab,” El1, p. 485.

75 See Whelan, E., The Public Figure: Political Iconography in Medieval Mesopotamia, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 1979, pp. 90–91, 804–805, 837–838.Google Scholar

76 For the use of the harbah by Mu'āwiyah, Ziyād ibn Abīhī, and ā'umacr ibn 'Abd al-'Azīz, see al-Ya'qūbī, II, 276; al-Tiqtaqā, ibn, Ta'rīkh al-duwal al-islanziyyah (Beirut, 1960), p. 106;Google Scholaral-Damīrī, , Hayāt al-hayāwān al-kubrā, part I (Cairo, 1898), p. 52;Google Scholar al-Tabarī, 2 série, I, 77, 79; and al-Jawzī, ibn, Manāqib 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Azīz, ed. by Becker, (Berlin, 1900), p. 34. For the 'Abbāsids, see al-Tabarī, 3e série, I, 193; II, 455, 571; V, 1437.Google Scholar

77 Miles, G. C., “Mihrab and 'Anazah: A Study in Islamic Iconography,” Archaeologia Orientalia in Memoriam Ernst Herzfeld (Locust Valley, N.Y., 1952), pp. 156–171. Both in this work and in the article “'Anaza”, El 2, Miles treated the terms “harbah” and “'anazah” as interchangeable. Nevertheless, in the texts cited here, a distinction seems to have been observed. Harbah, or hirāb, was used for the spear that served as a symbol of authority in pre-Islarnic Arabia and continued to be used in the same way for the first two centuries of Islam. 'Anazah was generally reserved for the specific spear that belonged to the Prophet. The caliphal inscriptions on the coin thus suggest that the associated image is that of the harbah.Google Scholar

78 Miles, “Mihrab and 'Anazah” pp. 161–162. Although Miles by no means limited his quest for sources to Greek imperial coins, his other suggestions, based on linguistic and architectural evidence that has already been dealt with in this study, need not be pursued here.

79 See Rhodokanakis, loc. cit.; and “'Anaza,” El2.

80 Ibn 'Abd Rabbihī, III, 285. It should be pointed out here that the earliest surviving complete decorated mihrāb, found in the mosque of al-Mansūr at Baghdad and possibly dating from his reign (136–158/754–775) or that of Hārūn al-Rashīd (170–193/786–809), is distinguished from every other known mihrāb by a column of superimposed vases entwined with richly curling palmette and vine scrolls, which is carved on the vertical axis of the interior. This decoration may have been intended as a reference to the Prophet's staff or as a backdrop for a similar object. For illustrations, see EMA II, 34, fig. 26, pl. Ia–e. A specific relic of the Prophet—another staff, called the qadīb, on which he leaned while addressing the congregation—was associated with the minbar. It was also used by his immediate successors at Medina, and the practice of planting a staff on the minbar was emulated elsewhere. See al-Samhūdū, Khulāsah, pp. 113–114; and Becker, op. cit., pp. 337, 343–344, 349–351.

81 For a general summary of his life, with references, see “Mu'āwiyah,” El1, especially pp. 619–620.

82 See Grabar, , “The Umayyad Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem,” Ars Orientalis, III (1959), 33–62;Google Scholar and Bates, M. L., “The ‘Arab-Byzantine’ Bronze Coinage of Syria: An Innovation by 'Abd al-Malik,” A Colloquium in Memory of George Carpenter Miles (1904–1975) (New York, 1975), pp. 16–27, and references given there.Google Scholar