عنوان مقاله [English]
There are two methods studying the Islamic art; of them is to study the Islamic art and its elements, in certain point of view. In the first method (Traditionalism) is to emphasize on ultra-temporal truths (Islamic principles). This approach believes that Islamic works reflects these truths. Titus Bokhart, Seyyed Hussein Nasr and Rene Genon are the most famous and best known thinkers of traditionalism thought. Second method (historicism), instead of exclusive emphasize on the Islamic principles, emphasizing on different factors such as geographical, cultural and international. This approach believes that art in the Islamic lands, on the basis of theirs environmental and cultural conditions has been established in various forms. Grabar, Ethinghausen, Terry Allen are the most famous and best known Historicism scholars. In this essay, we want to deal with the evaluation of two interpretations on Mihrab, as one of the mosque elements. Historicism Method justifies and explains the Mihrab by Historic, Geographic and social information and by this way points to Islamic artists recourses to other artistic and religious traditions. In this approach Mihrab is originally not an Islamic element, and its function merely was royal and regal. In contrast, traditional approach emphasizing the ultra-temporal truths in art, believes that sometimes Mihrab was the symbol of gate and entrance of paradise, sometimes was the symbol of Ka’ba, sometimes was the symbol of war and Jihad location (Crusade). We should be careful that the symbol for the traditionalism has special meaning. In fact, for them all of existential forms in universe (cosmos) are the forms that point to divine truths and meaning. So Islamic artworks which created in this tradition all are full of symbolic expression of these truths. In the traditionalism method symbol is not conventional, and is not human thing, but it has ontological aspect and it is context for presentation of meaning and truths running in all parts of universe. In this perspective Mihrab as the one of the mosque elements has symbolical relation with Ka’ba, Mohammedan truth and revelation of existence. Traditionalisms unlike what historicists think, did not deny influence of other cultures and traditions upon Islamic art, but they believe that there is a mysterious relation between Mihrab and all religions. We should remember that in the method of historicism, although Mihrab be meaningful for the Muslims, but we cannot interpret it as symbol. Because Mihrab has not any Islamic acquaintance. It is seems that historicism view about Mihrab can be based upon this unsaid but admitted presupposition that if we cannot find any document directly about certain subject, we cannot call it Islamic feature. By this belief, they believe that the Islamic thought cannot accept any aesthetic theory. Believing in traditionalism only, we neglect sentimental and emotional drives and miss historical and social information. In fact from the historicism point of view, Mihrab is not especial to Muslims mosque. There is no essentiality for its existence. Mihrab has not any peculiar position in the Islamic mosque and there is no any explicit text which point to Mihrab in the text of Holy Groan. Historicists believe that only Ka’ba and sacred sanctum mentioned in Holy Groan. Even if we accept that calling Islamic mosques which made in Islamic lands, we can only present Mihrab as the displayer of Qeble (side of Ka’ba which Muslims prayed toward that) .By believing Historicism only, we neglect some ultra-temporal facts. We should not neglect that logically believing in tow approach (traditionalism and historicism) at the same time is not paradoxical. So believing to them is possible in the investigation of artistic subjects such as Mihrab; i.e., in the study and investigation of topics such as Mihrab, we can appeal to historical, empirical informations and artist believes, phenomenological and symbolical elements.