Is it factually correct to use such terms as 'Islamic' Architecture, 'Muslim Architecture' or Indo-Muslim Architecture when we do not have any term like'Christian' Architecture in vogue? Is it not historically incorrect to use such terms?
Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi
Syed, There is nothing wrong with defining architecture in terms of religion, particularly when referring to architecture built for religious purposes.
Regarding the non-use of the words "Christian Architecture" I would say that many people in the West do not use such definition today because of the separation of state and religion. Therefore belief in a faith and religion (like which the political party you vote for) is now a private matter and not a public matter.
Furthermore, many people in the West are now so afraid of offending non-Christian religions that the former natural and normal and everyday celebration of the Christian faith is now deliberately suppressed in public.
Plus, in Britain today there is now very aggressive political activity by atheist organisations to have the Christian religion totally banned from schools, and this is the start of a total ban on all religions.
Frank John Snelling
it is up to anyone to call it islamic architecture or not. I think one should think of the long history of europe to understand why it is not 'christian' architecture. and it is not less muslum to call islamic architecture egyptian architecture or turkish architechture. we have to keed in mind that every country has its specific characteristics according to its needs. but i think that because muslim feel always perscuted from the 'west' they insist on 'islamic architecture'. I think it should be experienced differently :)