Commissioned by: Hassan Mahamdallie, Arts and Islam, Arts Council England

Written by: Shelina Zahra Janmohamed

Shelina Zahra Janmohamed is the author of Love in a Headscarf and writes an award-winning blog at spirit21.co.uk. She was named by [...Read Article]]]> Faith In the City: The Mosque in the Contemporary Urban West  Symposium report 10-11 November 2010

Commissioned by: Hassan Mahamdallie, Arts and Islam, Arts Council England

Written by: Shelina Zahra Janmohamed

Shelina Zahra Janmohamed is the author of Love in a Headscarf and writes an award-winning blog at spirit21.co.uk. She was named by The Times newspaper as one of the UK’s 100 most influential Muslim women.

Mosques make for big news.  The Park51 community centre – more commonly misreported as the ‘Ground Zero mosque’ – gained international coverage.  It prompted commentary from Barack Obama, protests against mosques up and down the USA and the proposal of Burn a Quran Day. Europe too erupted in debate on the back of events such as the Swiss minaret ban and the campaign against the Abbey Mills Mosque project in East London.  

Why did these events provoke such fury? Because the place, design and presence of mosques in the West pushes to a new frontier our understanding and acceptance of ourselves. Are we committed in action as much as in word to be fully participating citizens of a multicultural, multifaith, liberal society? Can that understanding and acceptance be expressed through architecture.

A timely political and media discussion organised by three well-placed organisations

The symposium was organised by the Architecture Foundation in partnership with Openvizor and Arts Council England’s Arts and Islam programme.  

The Architecture Foundation aims to “facilitate international and interdisciplinary exchange, stimulate critical engagement amongst professionals, policy makers and a broad public, and shape the quality of the built environment.”

Arts and Islam uses “informed debate and creative interventions [to explore] the relationship between artistic practice, policy and religious beliefs within the context of contemporary society.” OpenVizor states its mission as “supporting collaboration across borders, cultures and disciplines. “

Earlier this year OpenVizor, Arts and Islam and urban theorists This Is Not A Gateway organised the groundbreaking “Faith Buildings and Urban Environments” seminar which brought together a multidisciplinary panel to discuss the role, place and future of faith buildings.

The goal of this two day symposium entitled “Faith in the City” was to explore “the ways in which religious buildings – in particular the mosque – shape, and are shaped by, the public life of contemporary western cities.”

Can and should architecture be playing a leading role in the 21^st century relationship between Islam and the Western world’ 

With high profile projects such as Park51 and the ‘Abbey Mills Mosque’ colonising newspaper inches, architecture is already being used – abused some might say – for political ends. So instead, questions were posed: what should be the role of architecture in this dynamic? How should the role be carried out? And most significantly, who should be driving it and with what agenda?

Keynote lecture by Michel Abboud, architectural consultant for Park21 Cultural Centre

East London’s Rich Mix arts centre played host to Michel Abboud’s keynote lecture on the symposium’s first day. After the presentation, Abboud then engaged in conversation with Ziauddin Sardar, writer, broadcaster, cultural critic and Visiting Professor, School of Arts, City University, London. This was the first time the visuals of the project’s interior programme were presented to a public audience.

Abboud described how the excessive media coverage and politicisation of the project had “placed the architectural product at the centre of this controversy. For many, the architecture is the solution to the socio-political debate.” Architecture was both the root and the solution to the problem.

He described how the high profile location and $120 million cost of Park51 seemed to have been used as a rallying call for all those opposed to Muslims having a presence in the USA. The team driving the project had expected protest, but was taken off guard by the virulence of the campaign against the centre. 

A much needed expression of Muslim culture

Abboud then paused, and made a statement: “Park51 is not a mosque. Neither from the exterior nor the interior.” Nor is it located at Ground Zero, he added, pointing out that it is two and a half blocks away, with no direct line of sight.

This was a cultural centre which would be open to all communities, but which no one could fail to miss was inspired by Muslims. For Abboud, the centre was not a statement of Islam or Islamic imperialism, rather it was an expression of Muslim culture. “Muslim Americans don’t have a physical place to express Muslim culture,” he commented, adding that even Muslim Americans didn’t know how to tackle the media and political furore because this was the first time that they were learning to express their culture as a legitimate part of American society.

A much needed community centre, not a mosque

The first step had been to propose the idea of a community centre at a local consultation. The community was unanimously supportive and contributed ideas. A needs analysis was also conducted to find out what facilities were required in the locality.

The first challenge as an architect was “how do you please all parties involved?” He identified three groups. First are those with investment in the project, such as the developer who owns the building, the Imam and others who form the religious core of it, and individuals and institutions like the Mayor of New York who support the rights of faith communities and encourage developers. Then are those who oppose the project. Finally, and not to be forgotten, are the people of New York themselves.

The design incorporates facilities in shortage elsewhere in Lower Manhattan such as a squash court, pool, basketball court, spa, theatre, primary school, nursery, conference rooms, artists’ residences, a multicultural centre and a memorial to 9/11.

A relationship of sculpted light between the interior and exterior

Abboud was the first speaker to raise the question “what does a mosque look like”? which echoed throughout the symposium. He put aside domes, minarets and open spaces, and settled on one constant through geography and time, that pervades religious and secular buildings: the sculpting of light through lattice work, known as ‘mashrabiyya’.

Since the site was surrounded by buildings and only the frontage would be visible, the aim was to give the building some depth and “reveal the entrails”, showing that there was nothing to hide. Lattice work was used not just for decorative purposes, but as a structural component of the building, the exoskeleton running into the interior endoskeleton. In the day the light is filtered into the building, and at night light projects from inside the building to the outside.

The result is a striking exterior that looks both modern but undoubtedly Islamically-inspired. The passing public can see easily into the interior of the building.

Several other architects during the symposium also described how they felt it was important for the public to see into the building as people were praying, perhaps suggesting that otherwise they might be suspicious of what the Muslim worshippers were doing inside the building.

Fear, ignorance and stereotypes are at the root of the Park51 controversy

Did Michel Abboud think that the controversy about the building stemmed from the fact that nonetheless it still looks recognisably Islamic? “There was controversy before the images were published,” he commented, but added that once the visuals were made available the immediate controversy had lessened. He thought that it was fear and ignorance of the unknown along with those same stereotypical ideas of mosques that had inflamed the debate.

Workshops and discussions to broaden the debate to more practitioners and more case studies

A day of debate and discussion followed, exploring ideas and case studies of recent mosque and faith building design from across Europe. These discussions were held at the Architecture Foundation’s London headquarters and were grouped under three panels: “Ideas”, “Design” and “Experience”.

Panel 1: Ideas

Abbas Nokhasteh of OpenVizor moderated the first panel on “Paradise on Earth: Imagining Structures for Religious Experience” introducing two panellists. The first was Berlin-based Lukas Feireiss, curator, writer, artist and editor of Closer To God: Religious Architecture and Sacred Spaces and Beyond Architecture: Imaginative Buildings and Fictional Cities. He was joined by Charlotte Malterre-Barthes of Foreign Architects Switzerland, who see themselves as a “platform for alternative ideas, projects, and people” and who commissioned a subversive competition in the post-minaret ban era in Switzerland to design an Islamic Centre in Zurich.

Feiress challenged the audience by asking “What does the mosque building represent? Is it a shelter? A gateway? A dialogue? Buildings need to communicate what they are about. In a secular society you have to find the form that works.” In his view there was a connecting thread between religious buildings is their function to provide a space for spirituality. He disputed the fact that this meant religious buildings were becoming homogenous across religions. For Feiress the challenge for architects is rather to achieve a balance between the progressive and traditional elements of religion.

Malterre-Barthes described the anger of Foreign Architects Switzerland (FAS) about the minaret ban. Their competition was not to design or build a mosque “but a method to create dialogue through design.”

They invited mosque designs which would ‘promote interaction and dialogue in the community’ and which would not only give Muslims a place to pray and meet, but provide an open meeting point between cultures.  Although the response was small, it achieved the aim of catalysing a discussion in the architectural community internationally about cultural differences.  It was also an act of solidarity with the Swiss Muslim community who found it difficult to express themselves in the post-ban climate.

One of her colleagues at FAS separately commented that the minaret ban used architecture to conceal racism. “Racism does not have a face. The landscape – architecture – buildings give it a face. And this is precisely why we feel architects had a duty to speak out against the ban. Architects could promote constructive, creative dialogue – if they dare to speak up.”

Panel 2: Design

Panel 2 focused on “Design” and was chaired by Dr Noha Nasser, the Acting Director of the Urban Renaissance Institute at the University of Greenwich and Founder, Centre for Urban Design Outreach and Skills (CUDOS), Birmingham City University. She framed the discussion on design by describing it as “the ability of an architect to use architecture as a means of communication.”

The first panellist presented his case by video (due to visa difficulties). Alen Jasarevic architect and founder of Jasarevic Architekten, was commissioned to design the Penzberg Islamic Forum in Bavaria, Germany. In his view mosque architecture today is influenced – or we could go as far as to say, constrained – by our notions of a traditional mosque typology.

Should a mosque look like a mosque? Should it be called a mosque? Should it contain a masjid?

Whilst Jasarevic focused on the preconceptions we have of the typology of a mosque, his question could and should have been posed to highlight other strands of discussion that were raised consistently throughout the two day symposium.

For example, must a mosque still be called a mosque? And what does it mean to be a mosque anyway?

Should a mosque be bold and brash or subtly woven into the fabric of the landscape?

Must it be enclosed to offer privacy to the worshipper, or should it be transparent and visible to others?.

Should its function be a prayer space, known in Arabic as a masjid, or should it be a multipurpose space which we call a community centre?

Communities with multiple identities need centres with multiple functions

Ergün Erkoçu, architect, author, and Creative Director of Concept 0031 based in The Hague and Cihan Bugdaci, Director, Gentlemen A.R.T are the architects of the unrealised Polder Mosque and co-authors of the book The Mosque: Political, Architectural and Social Transformations. They presented a thesis of ‘The Pluricultural Reality’, where a person or a community is identified by many realities, and that this pluriculturality must be taken into account when talking about or creating for a community. 

They argued that buildings must reflect human pluriculturality by being multifunctional. One of the benefits would be to make the building more interesting as an investment, reducing the financial strain which communities currently face in funding mosques. Another benefit would be finding an accommodation with the Western secular state which would be less threatened by viewing the building in community and cultural terms rather than religious ones. 

Panel 3: Experience

The final panel looked at Experience: Past, Present and Future. Moderated by Ziauddin Sardar, Michel Abboud was in discussion with Ali Mangera, architect and founder of Mangera Yvars Architects based in London/Barcelona and the architects of the experimental, un-built and highly contested Abbey Mills Mosque, originally due to be located near East London’s Olympic site. He felt the project had been hijacked by media and politics in much the same way as Park51, due to its scale and visibility.

Mangera described four directions that modern mosque design has taken. First, some have had no evolution – stuck in traditional stereotypical elements of a mosque. Second, some mosques have embraced a contemporary re-interpretation, which in Mangera’s view had also failed as they were stuck in the same frame of reference. The third type was that which had veered to a complete negation of the mosque stereotype, but Mangera also viewed this as a failure since it did not meet the community’s need to convey its own identity. The only option remaining was to avoid falling into cliché, and to emphasise the importance of spatial experience.

Burning questions still needing answers

Zia Sardar forcefully returned to the key question: “What is a mosque?”

“Anything you want it to be,” replied Mangera enigmatically. “Muslims will tell you that a mosque is any place where you gather to pray.”

“A mosque is a place where a Muslim goes through various rituals of ablution and prayer and experiences the Divine individually and collectively,” countered Sardar.

This dialogue exemplified the heart of the divergence in opinion about the purpose of a mosque and the elements which come together so that a building can be called ‘mosque’.

I felt this alluded to a deeper underlying question that had remained uncrystallised during the proceedings: who is driving the agenda of mosque design? Why, for example, were the words ‘mosque’ or ‘masjid’ not used in any of the concept presentations but rather the case studies were all of ‘cultural’ or ‘community’ centres? 

Audience comments reflecting this view came thick and fast: “I see the variety of mosques as another type of social experimentation on Muslims,” said one. “Society is exerting its power on Muslims,” said another.  “Is the building for the users or for the critics?” asked a third.

They expressed a sense that the elements of prayer, spirituality and Islam from the conception of the Islamic faith buildings had been swept aside. “Where do we see any thought of the place of the mosque design in the cosmology of Islam?” asked one audience member.

“No one has talked about ‘praying’ or improving the prayer experience,” said another. “The mosque is a ‘masjid’, that is to say that it is all about the journey to prostration.” This seemed to be absent from the designs presented.

Yet another echoed the lack of sensitivity towards those who were praying: “I feel uncomfortable that people can look in from the outside or that a mosque is camouflaged in a community centre.  Prayer is not a show or spectacle.”

Abboud responded: “The designs are open to the outside because we as architects are trying to counter the prevailing [negative] views of the mosque in the city.”

This made sense when considering the strong sentiments expressed against the Park51 and the Abbey Mills Mosque projects.  Mangera commented that the negativity was to the ‘scale and visibility’ of the projects. Both were expensive and located near high profile sites. Both had been referred to as ‘megamosques’ and were ‘read as an act of triumph and power’. The additional problem was that mosques, as well as other faith buildings, were seen as deriving their power from another, and higher, authority in a secular country where power is derived from temporal politics and democratic processes.

The audience response was: if we start to make mosques that look like art galleries or opera houses, then aren’t we denying the specific epistemology of Islam? And isn’t the typology of the mosque something that Europe has always had a problem with?

There was an anxiety amongst the Muslims in the audience that the ‘community centre’ model was being pushed and the traditional typology of the mosque was being abandoned, not through aesthetic considerations but as part of a wider trend to erase mosques, and that this trend towards erasing mosques from the Western skyline had its roots in history. 

This was echoed in comments that referred to a wider debate than just that of mosques – a debate that questioned whether something called ‘Islamic architecture’ itself exists.

In Sardar’s view, those who deny that the historic canon of ‘Islamic architecture’ exists are undermining the wider discussion about the place and existence of Islam itself in today’s modern world.  And this leads back to the question of who exactly is driving the agenda on mosque design. By extension this becomes a much bigger question of how is the West accommodating its Muslim heritage and Muslim citizens.

Mangera explained that one of the intentions of the ‘multipurpose’ philosophy was to counter this anxiety by saying “we are not here to take from the surroundings, but to add something to the community.”

So, why is the question ‘what is a mosque?’ so crucial?

With mosques and Islamic cultural centres gaining front page coverage and mobilising communities and politicians, it’s clear that architecture is at the forefront of political, religious and social discourse. Those who are commissioning and designing mosques are shaping the debate, just as they are being shaped by the wider social discourse.

The question “what is a mosque” is therefore the same question as “what is the place of Islam and Muslims in the western world”? Both questions require a definition and a shape to be given to the central physical space that binds Muslim communities together, and determine how Islam is publicly manifested.

Is the fact that only ‘community centres’ and no ‘mosques’ were presented during the symposium because Muslims have become very sensitive to the pressures that the media and politics have been putting on them? Is it a safer option to be called a centre than a mosque?

Or – and this was not touched on during the symposium – is it because mosques have needed to become more and more pastoral in order to meet the needs of their congregations? In majority Muslim countries services such as afterschool religious classes, childcare, social welfare and marriage guidance, matchmaking, sports facilities and so on might have been provided in the wider civic space. Muslims now need these from the mosque because they cannot get the tailored services they need from elsewhere. In addition, it is a chance for Muslims to give something to the wider communities around them.

Although there was much discussion about what a ‘traditional’ mosque looks like, with features such as a dome or minaret, there was little reflection on the traditional functional typology of a mosque in the early days of Islam. Generally it is held that the masjid was in fact a centre for a community that was built around a prayer space.  Rather than being a new development, perhaps the ‘community centre’ model is in fact a return to the traditional conception of a mosque.

There is a crucial interplay between the words used to describe the buildings; who has control over the words, the functional definitions, and the design that is used to bring all of these together. How architecture is used to express this interplay lies at the heart of the social and political debate about mosques.

After two days of hot debate and the flow of European and North American creative juices, the crux of the matter came to this: whether the profession likes it or not, architecture sits at the front line of the debate of Islam’s place in Europe and the USA.  This needs to be acknowledged and debated further. Design and architecture, accompanied by carefully chosen words, will shape buildings, landscape, communities and politics.

Bangladeshi Artist Residency from Arts and Islam on Vimeo.

Hip Hop Summit from Suzana Kalcic on Vimeo.