Mantua Humanistic Studies

Volume II

Edited by
Riccardo Roni

UNIVERSITAS
STUDIORUM
© 2018, Universitas Studiorum S.r.l. - Casa Editrice
via Sottoriva, 9 - 46100 Mantova (MN)
P. IVA 02346110204
www.universitas-studiorum.it

Progettazione grafica della copertina:

Ilari Anderlini, Art Director
www.graphiceye.it

Foto in copertina:
© Luigi Diego Di Donna

Impaginazione e redazione:
Luigi Diego Di Donna

I contributi pubblicati nella presente miscellanea

sono stati sottoposti a peer review

Prima edizione nella collana “Mantua Humanistic Studies” luglio 2018

Finito di stampare nel luglio 2018

ISBN 978-88-3369-000-1
 Summary

An essay on compared Anglophone communication:

speaking Glob(al Engl)ish 5
Sabrina Mazzara
Modernismo artistico e letterario:
il caso di “In Parenthesis” (1937) di David Jones 33
Virginia Vecchiato
A Reconstructive Hypothesis of the Palace-Mosque
Complex in the Round City of al-Manṣūr in Baghdād 53
Michelina Di Cesare
Masjidu-hu wa masākinu-hu: “His Mosque
and His Dwellings”. New Perspectives on the Study
of “the House of the Prophet” in Madīna 97
Aila Santi

“But like to Wolves on one another fly” (Iliad, XI, v. 74).

Hobbes, l’Iliade e la guerra civile inglese 117
Raffaella Santi
Stock or Shares? Creditors or Accounts Payable?
Overheads or Overhaead? Stock or Inventory?
L’importanza di una buona competenza linguistica
nel curriculum aziendale e del manager moderno 125
Elena Maria Montagna

3
The Nature and Dynamics of Socio-Economic Paradigms 145
Sara Casagrande
La qualità della democrazia.
Il concetto e il campo semantico 191
Ciro D’Amore
La qualità della democrazia:
le dimensioni empiriche 219
Ciro D’Amore

4
 Masjidu-hu wa masākinu-hu:
“His Mosque and His Dwellings”.
New Perspectives on the Study
of “the House of the Prophet” in Madīna1
Aila Santi
Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”

Abstract
This contribution proposes a thorough discussion of the building tradi-
tionally known as the “House of the Prophet” in Madīna. By address-
ing historical and topographical issues, it seeks to provide a reliable
reconstruction of the early Islamic layout of the city with a focus on
the relationship between the ‘House of the Prophet’ and the ‘Mosque
of the Prophet’, finally revealing innovative insights into the origin of
the mosque type and the organization of space in the founding period
of Islam.

Keywords: Early Islamic Architecture, Islamic Archaeology, Medina,

Mosque architecture.

“House of the Prophet”, “Mosque of the Prophet”: the

controversy
The very first significant analysis on the building acknowl-
edged as “the house of the Prophet” in Madīna goes back to
Leone Caetani’s outstanding work Annali dell’Islām,2 which
formed the basis of what will be referred to here as the ‘do-
1. This paper constitutes the first part of a comprehensive study on the
relationship between the Mosque of the Prophet and the adjacent dwell-
ing quarter in Madīna, and their development over time. The second part
of the study has just been published (Santi 2017).
2. Caetani 1905: 371-382; 432-449.
97
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

mestic theory’. Caetani’s argument assumed that the whole

range of secular and profane activities3 that took place in the
“mosque” provides clear, although indirect, evidence of its
purely domestic and utilitarian nature,4 which was later mis-
interpreted by the traditionists who retrospectively reshaped
the history of the building by referring to it as a masjid rather
than a dār. Caetani’s ‘domestic theory’ was embraced in 1932
by K.A.C. Creswell, whose work5 played a decisive role in its
affirmation and spread.6 The British scholar was in fact the
first one to reproduce a detailed plan of the edifice,7 meant to
be one the best-known in the history of Islamic architecture.
Creswell’s “House of the Prophet” ‒ a square courtyard 100
× 100 cubits wide with doors on three sides; a two-rows deep
ẓulla on the qibla side (due South) and a smaller shaded area
(ṣuffa) on the opposite wall (fig. 1) ‒ constitutes an attempt to
merge and harmonise the structural characteristics of the tra-
ditional Arabic architectural type of the dār 8 and data relating
to the “mosque of the Prophet” drawn from historical sourc-
es.9 The most interesting detail in the plan is the arrangement
of the apartments of Muḥammad’s wives: nine little huts built

3. Bukhārī, ḥadīth nos. 219, 220, 405, 415, 423, 454, 455, 457, 464,
471, 475.
4. Caetani 1905: 439.
5. Creswell 1932. We will refer here to the 1979 edition.
6. Scerrato 1972: 19; Grabar 1973: 107-108; Kuban 1974: 1-2; Cre-
swell & Allan 1989: 4-5; Pedersen 1991; Hillenbrand 1994: 39-42. The
“domestic theory” was accepted even by Muslim scholars such as Kamāl
al-Dīn Sāmiḥ (1982: 5-6) and Farīd Shāfiʿī (1970; 1982: 1-3).
7. Creswell 1979: 5-7.
8. Creswell 1979: 6-7.
9. See references in Creswell 1979: 6.
98
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

Figure 1. The house of the Prophet according to Creswell (Creswell 1979, fig. 7, reworking).

side by side against the eastern wall of the courtyard and di-
rectly connected with the latter through small doors.10
The “domestic theory” and its authoritative visual rendering
was challenged by Mahmoud Akkouch11 a few years later.
Nevertheless, although the Muslim scholar succeeded in
providing an alternative ‒ and mostly philological ‒ plan of
the building,12 his efforts had almost no impact on the liter-
ature probably because his alternative view was considered
as nothing but “le point de vue musulman traditionnel an
opposition à celui de Caetani et de M. Creswell”.13
10. The primitive arrangement of the huts of the Prophet’s wives is al-
most entirely based on the description recorded by Ibn Saʿd in his Ṭab-
aqāt (Creswell 1979: 8-9; see below).
11. Akkouch 1940.
12. Idem: 388, fig. 3. Mostly based on Samhūdī’s Wafāʿ al-wafāʿ (on this
author, see below).
13. Sauvaget 1947: 9, n. 2.
99
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

In 1979, Ghazi I. Bisheh wrote a fundamental PhD thesis14

which succeeded in systematically refuting almost all of the
evidence put forth by Caetani and Creswell in support of their
statements.15 As a matter of fact, Bisheh demonstrated that the
building was considered a masjid even during Muḥammad’s
lifetime16 providing the definitive argument to reject the ‘do-
mestic theory’, but his remarkable work, remaining unpub-
lished, did not achieve the impact it might have deserved in
the Academia. It is only thanks to the essays by Johns17 and
14. Bisheh 1979.
15. He points out in particular that the range of “profane” activities that
took place in the courtyard cited by Caetani as proof of the eminent-
ly secular character of the building do not at all demonstrate that the
Prophet’s Mosque was a house, but rather that it was used for a wide
variety of activities according to the original multifunctional character of
mosques (Bisheh 1979: 124-126).
16. By quoting some unique extracts attributed to Ḥassān b. Thābit (d. ca.
54/674; Ḥassān b. Thābit 1974: 217, 377, 379 in Bisheh 1979: 122-124).
17. In particular, Johns (1999) deals with the matter of the building
function, articulating his argument as follows: 1. Listing a series of de-
tails in which the ‘House of the Prophet’ departs from the ethnographic
model of the Arabic dār, i.e.: the exaggerated size of the courtyard being
“far greater than any purely domestic dwelling is like to have been” (Idem:
74), the presence of three main entrances instead of the one customary
in the traditional domestic architecture of Ḥijāz, the fact that the hous-
es of the Prophet’s wives – built against the exterior of the courtyard –
apart from being an “architectural nonsense” (Ibid.), were inadmissibly
exposed to public gaze; 2. Quoting a series of traditions (including Ibn
Rusta’s Kitāb al-aʿlāq al-nafīsa, Ibn Hishām’s Sīra, Samhūdī’s Wafāʿ al-
Wafāʿ and Bukhārī’s Sahīh) that belie the arrangement of the houses of
the Prophet’s wives proposed by Creswell (proving firstly that the sources
quoted by Creswell himself, ʿUmarī’s Masālik al-Abṣār, Samhūdī’s Khu-
lāṣat al-Wafāʿ, Diyārbakrī’s Taʾrīkh al-Khamīs and Ibn Saʿd’s Ṭabaqāt
contain almost nothing to support his reconstruction) and showing that,
100
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

Ayyad18 that the subject has once again been brought to the
attention of scholars, resulting in a significant reversion to
the Islamic traditional address. Despite this, a pars construens
aimed at clarifying unresolved matters concerning the actual
plan and arrangement of the complex is still lacking, which
will be the aim of the following paragraphs.

Mosque of the Prophet: sources-based reconstruction of

the early layout and building phases (622-638)
Traditionists19 report that, once arrived in Madīna, Muḥam-
mad stopped in front of a mirbad in the territory of the Banū
al-Najjār20 where he decided to establish the first mosque of
according to them, the houses should have been placed on all sides of the
mosque; 3. Propounding Bisheh’s arguments that the ‘profane’ activities
conducted in the courtyard prove the multifunctional character of the
mosque (see above, n. 14). Having reinstated the traditional Islamic view
with the assumption that the dwelling quarters of the Prophet’s wives and
the mosque comprised two distinct and separate structural units, Johns
fails in his attempt to identify the genesis of what he calls “the concept
of the mosque”. Even assuming the public and multifunctional charac-
ter of the huge courtyard and its independent status from the adjoining
dwelling quarters, he admits that believing “that the mosque could have
sprung fully-formed from the Prophet’s head on the very first day that
he set foot in Medina”, would require an “act of faith” of which he was
not capable (Johns 1999: 107-108), leaving open a number of questions
affecting the origin, form and function of the building in the aftermath
of the hijra.
18. Ayyad 2013.
19. Ibn Hishām: 102-103; Balādhurī: 18-21; Ibn Saʿd, I: 279; Ṭabarī,
III: 1258-1259; Ibn Isḥāq: 228-230; Bukhārī: 276.
20. This element is anything but casual: the Banū al-Najjār and the
Prophet were blood-related through Salma bt. ʿAmr, mother of ʿAbd
al-Muṭṭalib. This kin bond justified the decision without compromising
101
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

Islamic history. The account of Ibn Isḥāq, who informs us

that the Prophet stayed in the house of the anṣār Abū Ayyūb
“until the mosque and his house were completed”21 testifies,
together with other traditions, that the building project in-
cluded from the very outset the simultaneous construction
of two different architectural units: “his mosque and his
dwellings” (masjidu-hu wa-masākinu-hu).22
The attempt to deduce the size of the first mosque encoun-
ters some difficulties due to the discordance of the various
accounts. Among the sources quoted by Creswell,23 mention
of the size of 100 cubits per side is only found in Ibn Saʿd24
and Ibn Rusta25, although both allude to the possibility that
the walls might have been a little shorter. The other accounts
only mention building materials, and none provide remark-
able information about the structure, with the exception of
Samūdhī, whose discordant account – which indicates the
mosque measured around 60 × 70 cubits – was perempto-
rily rejected by Creswell in favour of the reliability of some
the fragile political equilibrium within the Medinan potentates (Watt
1987: XVII; Ibn Isḥāq: 228). The choice of the site was probably also
influenced by the fact that the same mirbad seems to have been employed
for the Friday Prayer already some time before the hijra (Balādhurī: 19;
Ibn Saʿd, I: 281; Ibn Rusta: 68).
21. Ibn Isḥāq: 228.
22. Ibn Hishām: 102; Ṭabarī, III: 1258-1259; Ibn Isḥāq: 228-229: Ibn
Rusta: 68.
23. See references in Creswell 1979, I.1: 7. The scholar affirms that “the
edifice was built in the shape of a square 100 cubits each way”, support-
ing his assumption with the fact that “all the early authorities are unani-
mous in giving it as 100 cubits square” (Ibid.).
24. Ibn Saʿd, I: 281.
25. Ibn Rusta: 67-68.
102
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

unspecified “early authorities”.26 Samhūdī’s Wafāʿ al-wafāʿ is

actually one of the most complete and remarkable compen-
diums of detailed information about the Mosque of Madīna.
Despite being one of the latest sources dealing with the mat-
ter,27 the large number of traditions collected and quoted,
accompanied often by a chain of transmitters,28 make it one
of the most reliable accounts on the subject.
He conveys an extraordinarily important fact29 that helps
to clarify the discordant accounts of the size of the mosque:
the Prophet built the mosque twice, in 622 and in 628, af-
ter the conquest of Khaybar. The measure attested under
100 cubits would thus be attributable to the first building
phase (622-628), while the ‘courtyard’ reached the size of
around 100 cubits per side only after the battle of Khay-
bar (628). On the basis of the reports of Ibn Zabāla and
Yaḥya b. al-Ḥasan, together with an accurate study of the
remains of the original plan, Samhūdī provides for the first
phase (622-628) the measurements of 63 (qibla side)30 ×
26. “Samhūdī […] also gives the size as 70 × 60 cubits, a variation recorded
by Diyārbakrī, I, p. 390, l. 16. Margoliouth (Mohammed, p. 221) takes
this as the most probable measurement, but all the early authorities are
unanimous in giving it as 100 cubits square.” Creswell 1979, I.1: 7, n. 5.
27. Samhūdī was dead by 1533.
28. In particular Samhūdī frequently quotes the Akhbār al-Madīna of
Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan b. Zabālah al-Makzūmī (d. 814-15) and the
homonym account of Yaḥya b. al-Ḥasan b. Jaʿfar al-Ḥusaynī (d. 890),
pointing out they were the first scholars to compile a comprehensive
history of Madīna (cf. Bisheh 1979: 11-16).
29. Samhūdī, I: 241. The same information can also be found in Ibn
Rusta: 67-68; Ibn Ḥanbal: 59; Ibn al-Aṭīr: 73; Barzanği: 11 (Akkouch
1940: 391).
30. The same value can also be found in Ibn Rusta: “les dimensions de la
103
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

70 cubits;31 and for the second (628-638)32 the value of 97

cubits for each side.33
Through a comparison with the plan of the Mosque of the
Prophet as it appeared before the Saudi restoration (figure 2)34
and the detection of a number of architectural elements in the
al-Rawḍa area35 which maintained their exact position over
time, it has been possible to verify these data and to identify
the possible perimeter of the building in its early stages.
Following Samhūdī, before 628, the current position of the
‘Column of Repentance’36 indicates the place where the east-
ernmost wall of the first mosque stood. The ẓulla had three
columns to the right and three to the left of the minbar.
Considering the length of the qibla side (63 cubits), we can
attempt to estimate the value of each intercolumniation by
dividing 63 by 7, the number of sections into which the qib-
la wall was ideally divided by the six columns.37 The resulting

mosquée de l’Envoyé de Dieu sont les suivantes: […] de l’est à l’ouest, 63

coudées” (Ibn Rusta: 82). However, Ibn Rusta’s account, which disagrees
with that of Samhūdī on the size of the north-south wall, cites the dimen-
sions of 54 cubits, calculating a total area of 3,440 square cubits (Ibid.).
31. Samhūdī, I: 248-249, 251-253.
32. 638 is the year attesting the first enlargement of the building ordered
by ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb.
33. Samhūdī, I: 253-254.
34. Sauvaget 1947: pl. 1.
35. Corresponding to the zone between the Tomb of the Prophet and
the minbar, at the foundation site of the original mosque built under
Muḥammad’s command. The Arabic name, meaning “garden”, is due to
a ḥadīth reported by al-Bukhārī (ḥadīth nos. 286-287).
36. Samhūdī, I: 248, 249, 251-253.
37. We can assume that the distance between the first and the last col-
umn of the row and the side walls was equivalent to one intercolum-
104
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

Figure 2. The Mosque of the Prophet as it appeared in 1940 (Sauvaget 1947, pl. I).

105
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

value is 9 cubits, corresponding to about 4.50 metres.38 We

can easily verify on the plan the almost exact correspondence
between the data conveyed by the source and the actual ar-
rangement of the colonnade of the prayer hall in the origi-
nal phase. Taking the measurements without considering the
thickness of the columns, the resulting size of the intercolum-
niation is between 4.40 and 4.60 metres, a value very close
to that previously calculated and for which the error margin
is justifiable because of the irregular placement of the sup-
ports.39 Thus extending an imaginary line of 63 cubits (ca.
31.3 metres) from the ‘Column of Repentance’ in a westerly
direction gives us the position of the qibla wall of the very
first Mosque of the Prophet, which includes three columns
to the right and three to the left of the minbar, according to
the statement of Ibn Zabāla and Yaḥya b. al-Ḥasan.40 Anoth-
er fundamental correspondence could be verified in regard
to the distance between the mosque’s eastern side and the
ḥujra of ʿĀʾisha, the position of which is identified by the
niation value from the previously quoted statement of Ibn Zabāla and
Yaḥya b. al-Ḥasan, according to which “la mosquée s’arrêtait à la colonne
du Repentir qui determine l’emplacement du mur est” (Akkouch 1940:
392). We can suppose that the distance between the last column to the
right and the westernmost wall was equal for reasons of symmetry.
38. There are some variations concerning the real value of the cubit
(dhirāʿ) in centimetres, as a considerable number of different cubits were
in use in Islam (Hinz 1991: 231-232). In taking the measurements of
the plan it was possible to note that, assuming the value of the so-called
“legal cubit” of 49.8 cm, the data conveyed by Samhūdī almost exactly
fits with the actual measurements of the mosque. For details, see below.
39. To take these measurements the plan was analysed using the program
AutoCAD 360.
40. Cf. above.
106
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

Tomb of the Prophet. If we measure from the western wall

of the inner chamber – which conceivably corresponds to
the original hut before the rebuilding by al-Walīd – up to
the ‘Column of Repentance’, we get a value (ca. 9.85 m)
strikingly close to the 20 cubits (9.96 m) reported by al Sam-
hūdī.41 We can therefore assume that in phase 1 the dwelling
place of ʿĀʾisha, where the Prophet himself resided, stood
at a distance of about 10 metres from the mosque, in ac-
cordance with Ibn Saʿd, who reported about the presence
of a path leading from the ḥujra to the mosque.42 We can
hence confidently affirm that, at least before the enlargement
that followed the conquest of Khaybar, the mosque and the
apartments stood separately and independently from each
other without any sort of structural connection (fig. 3).
For what concerns phase 2, according to Samhūdī after
Khaybar the Prophet extended the mosque to both the east
and the west until the qibla side reached the length of 97
cubits (ca. 48.3 m).43 At this stage, according to Ibn Zabāla,
the ẓulla had eight columns, four to the right and four to the
left of the minbar. 44
If we make the inverse calculation in order to verify this data,
i.e. divide the size of the qibla wall by the value of the inter-
columniation (ca. 4.50),45 we get a number equal approxi-
mately to 10, representing the number of ideal segments into

41. Samhūdī, I: 316.

42. Ibn Saʿd, I: 282.
43. Samhūdī, I: 253-254.
44. Samhūdī, I: 253.
45. I.e. the number of intercolumniations added to the distance between
the first and the last column of the row and the side walls.
107
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

Figure 3. Reconstruction of the first phases of the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina (©
Aila Santi).

108
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

which the width of the prayer hall was divided by the columns
set longitudinally, which were thus 9 in total. Nevertheless,
this result conflicts with what was reported by Ibn Zabāla
who, counting 8 columns in total in this phase, stated that
the limits of the mosque coincided with the fifth column east
and west of the minbar. Indeed, the size of 97 cubits for the
qiblī wall is not attributable to any of Samhūdī’s early sources
but is the result of some measurements the scholar himself
took inside the mosque. Allegedly, he erroneously took the
western wall of the outer chamber of the tomb of the Proph-
et46 to be the oriental boundary of the mosque and not, as
clearly stated by Ibn Zabāla, the fifth column east of the min-
bar, and measured the distance running between the tomb
and the sixth range of columns west of the minbar (which
he likewise arbitrary considered as the western limit of the
building), obtaining the value of 97 cubits. The arbitrary na-
ture of this measurement is also confirmed by Malik b. Anas
(d. 796)47 who reports that, after 628, the eastern wall of the
mosque reached a position between the columns aligned with
the ‘Column of Repentance’ and the range of columns erect-
ed against the wall of the Tomb,48 thus in the very narrow
space between the fifth and the sixth range of columns east
of the minbar. Hence, the real measure of the qiblī wall in
this phase should have been ca. 82 cubits (40.8 meters is the
distance between the fifth ranges of columns east and west of
the minbar), and ʿĀʾisha’s ḥujra should thus have stood ca. 10
cubits eastward in respect to the wall of the mosque.
46. According to the late Ibn al-Najjār (m. 1245; see Wüstenfeld 1860: 61).
47. Schacht 1991: 262-265.
48. Samhūdī, I: 250.
109
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

This fact provides evidence against the element which more

than any other formed the basis of the ‘domestic theory’,
i.e. the structural contiguity of the houses of the Prophet’s
wives and the wall of the mosque. Among the accounts cit-
ed by Creswell in this concern great emphasis is placed on
the Ṭabaqāt of Ibn Saʿd in which it is reported that ʿAbd
Allāh b. Yazīd saw “the houses of the wives of the Prophet,
at the time when ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz demolished them”
(ca. 88/707), describing them as “nine houses, each having
separate rooms49, in the space extending from the house of
ʿĀʾisha to the house of Asmāʾ, daughter of Ḥasan.”50 It is
quite evident by looking at the Arabic test that what the
source means here is the presence of nine proper houses51
(attention is drawn to the word employed, bayt) composed
of more than a ḥujra (wa lahā ḥujar), plainly revealing the
absolute scarce philological relevance of Creswell’s recon-
struction, based on the presence of nine ḥujarāt built against
the eastern wall of the mosque.
Moreover, an accurate analysis of the other sources quoted by
the scholar revealed the lack of actual textual evidence legiti-
mising the structural contiguity between the apartments and
the mosque. Creswell quotes Samhūdī’s accounts, which he
consulted in Wüstenfeld’s translation,52 and Diyārbakrī’s,53

49. ‫كانت بيوتا بالبن و لها حجرمن جريد مطرورة بالطين عددت تسعة ابيات بحخرها‬
Ibn Saʿd 1905: 180-181.
50. Creswell 1979, I.1: 8-9.
51. For a reconstruction of the early layout of the dwelling quarter east of
the mosque, see Santi 2017.
52. Wüstenfeld 1860: 60-1; 78.
53. Diyārbakrī: 390.
110
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

which he presumably read in Caetani’s Italian version.54

The original text of the passage of Diyārbakrī55 makes no
mention of the adjective adherent (“aderenti”) found in Cae-
tani’s translation,56 which was probably arbitrarily appended
by Caetani himself in order to corroborate his own belief.
Likewise, we could not find references alluding to this pre-
sumed adherence in Samhūdī’s text. The latter only states that
the doors of the houses were in the direction of the mosque,
which does not mean that they directly opened onto the
courtyard, since he previously affirmed that they were built
outwardly with respect to the masjid.
These elements provide evidence to demonstrate that all
the dwellings remained structurally independent from the
mosque at least during Muḥammad’s lifetime. Furthermore,
with regard to the ḥujra of ʿĀʾisha,57 an excerpt from Sam-
hūdī informs us that “the Door of the Prophet [Bāb al-Nabī]
was so called because it was located in front of the hut of
ʿĀʾisha […] and not because he [i.e. Muḥammad] used it to
enter into the mosque, since it didn’t exist in his epoch”,58
thereby providing the definitive argument to affirm the ar-
chitectural independence of the House of the Prophet from
the Mosque of the Prophet.
54. Caetani 1905: 377-378.
55. Diyārbakrī, I: 346.
56. Caetani 1905: 377-378.
57. For which Akkouch (1940: 388, fig. 3), Johns (1999: 87-88) and
even Ayyad (2013: 287) supposed a direct connection to the prayer hall
through the so-called Bāb al-Nabī.
58. Translation of Samhūdī (: 496) by Prof. Mario Casari, whom I wish
to heartily thank for his substantial help in translating and commenting
the sources quoted in this article.
111
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

A proposal on the origin of the concept of the mosque

The assumption that the mosque had an independent role
from the time it was first built calls for a discussion on the or-
igin, structurally and functionally speaking, of the concept of
the mosque.59 Indeed, the confutation of the ‘domestic theory’
also raises doubts about the “intriguing”60 hypothesis which
recognized residential architecture as the prototype from
which the mosque type evolved. To my knowledge, the only
effort to provide a different answer to the question of when
the building actually originated has been made by Johns in
the final stage of his essay, although with no definitive con-
clusion.61 Indeed, after reviewing the various religious build-
ing types of the Late Antiquity which composed what he
calls “the family of the mosque”,62 he recognized the many
chronological and geographical difficulties involved in this
approach, which prevented him from identifying a specific
prototype from which the concept of the mosque could be di-
rectly derived. Johns restricted his investigation to buildings
specifically devoted to religious purposes. But if we bear in
mind the essentially political63 function of the mosque in the
early stages of Islamic history, extending the investigation to
buildings used for administrative and governmental purpos-
es before the arrival of Islam might produce some interesting
results. Considering that the immediate socio-cultural back-
ground of the muhājirūn was that of the Qurayshite Mecca,

59. Johns 1999: 103-10.

60. Ayyad 2013: 274.
61. Cf. above, n. 16.
62. Including churches, synagogues and bayt al-ʿarab.
63. Pedersen 1991: 646.
112
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

it is plausible that an ‘ancestor’ of the mosque could be found

right there. In Mecca the main locus for the accomplishment
of matters concerning urban government was the dār al-Na-
dwa,64 a building that was at the same time the residence
of the city chief and the place “where people assembled (to
gain) good and [to ward off] evil”.65 The city council (malaʿ)
gathered in a dedicated space inside it, called majlis, where
the rituals connected to the main aspects of Meccan social
life were carried out.66 Functionally speaking, the analogies
with the mosque of the Prophet in the aftermath of the hijra
are striking.
The same prototype may provide illuminating insights if we
look not only at the analogies but also at the variations to the
model characterizing the mosque of the Prophet. The very
fact that in Medina the masjid – in a sense, the Prophet’s
majlis – was built separately from Muḥammad’s house could
be read in connection to the political innovations brought
by Islam. In Mecca as the configuration of political power
was essentially oligarchic, admission to the city council was
subject to strict rules concerning the age and lineage of indi-
viduals,67 and locating the venue of the parliament inside the
aristocratic dwelling further emphasized the exclusive nature
of the institution.
On the contrary, the location of the courtyard as an inde-
pendent locus from the dwellings can be read not only as a
means to protect the private area of both the Prophet and

64. Levi della Vida 1927: 1225-1226.

65. Ibn Saʿd, I: 70.
66. Lammens 1926: 168.
67. Lammens 1926: 170.
113
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

his wives, but also as a meaningful political gesture with

important symbolic and political consequences. The choice
was a tangible step and delivered an explicit message within
the process of democratic opening which represented one of
the main strengths of the new social vision brought about
by Islam. The majlis opened its doors to all members of the
community, in spite of lineage and blood, giving the umma
an active role in political life.68

References
Akkouch, M. 1940. “Contribution à une étude des origines de l’archi-
tecture musulmane, La Grande Mosquée de Médine.” Mélanges Maspero
3: 377-410.
Ayyad, E.S. 2013. “The ‘House of the Prophet’ or ‘the Mosque of the
Prophet’?” Journal of Islamic Studies 24/3: 274-334.
Balādhurī, 1916. Kitāb Futūḥ al-Buldān. Trans. by Hitti P.K. The Origins
of the Islamic State, translation from the Arabic accompanied with annota-
tions geographic and historic notes of the Kitâb futûḥ al-buldân of al-Imâm
abu-l ‘Abbâs Aḥmad ibn Jâbir al-Balâdhuri. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
Barzanği 1913-14. Nuzhat an-Nāẓirīn. al-Miṣr: al-Ğamāliya.
Bisheh, G.I. 1979. The Mosque of the Prophet at Madīnah throughout the
First Century A.H. PhD Thesis: University of Michigan (unpublished).
Bukhārī 1997. Ṣaḥīḥ. Trans. by Khan M.M. Sahîh al-Bukhâri, Ara-
bic-English. Riyad: Darussalam Publishers and Distributors.
Caetani, L. 1905. Annali dell’Islām. Milano: Hoepli.
Creswell, K.A.C. 1979. Early Muslim Architecture. Umayyads A.D. 622-
750. New York: Hacker Art Books. [Revisited edition of Oxford 1969].

68. Santi 2015: 60-64.

114
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

Creswell, K.A.C. and James W.A. 1989. A Short Account of Early Muslim
Architecture. Aldershot: Scholar Press.
Dickie, A.C. 1897. “The Great Mosque of the Omeiyades.” Palestine Ex-
ploration Fund 29: 268-282.
Diyārbakrī 1884. Tārīkh al-Khamīs fī aḥwāl anfas nafīs. al-Miṣr: Maṭbaʿat
al-faqīr.
Farīd, S. 1982. al-ʿImāra al-ʿarabiyya al-Islāmiyya: māḍīhā wa ḥāḍiruhā
wa-mustaqbaluha. Riyadh: Maṭbaʿa Jāmiʿa al-Malik.

–––1970. al-ʿImāra al-ʿarabiyya fī Miṣr al-Islāmiyya: ʿaṣr al-wulāh. al-

Miṣr: al-Hayaʾa al-Miṣriyya al-ʿĀmma li-l-Taʾlīf wa-l Nashr.
Grabar, O. 1973. The Formation of Islamic Art. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press.
Ḥassān b. Thābit. 1974. Dīwān. Ed. by Ḥanafī S.H. al-Qāhira.
Hillenbrand, R. 2003 “Studying Islamic Architecture: Challenges and
Perspectives, Architectural History”. Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians of Great Britain 46/2: 1-18.
Hinz, W. 1991. “Dhirāʿ”. Encyclopaedia of Islam 2: 231-1.
Ibn al-Aṭīr. 1873. al-Kāmil fī’l Taʾrīkh. Le Caire.
Ibn Hishām. 2000. Sīrat, Biography of the Prophet. Abridged by ʻAb-
dus-Salām M. Hārūn. Cairo: al-Falah Foundation.
Ibn Isḥāq. 2004. Sīrat Rasūl Allāh. Trans. by Guillaume A.The Life of
Muhammad, a translation of Isḥāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ibn Rusta. 1955. Kitāb al-aʿlāq al-nafīsa. Trans. by De Wiet G. Ibn Rus-
teh, Les atours précieux. Le Caire: Publications de la Société de Géogra-
phie d’Égypte.
Ibn Saʿd, n.d. Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr. Trans. by Moinul Haq S. Ibn
Sa‘d’s Kitab al-tabaqat al-kabir. New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan.
Ibn Saʿd. 1905. Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

115
 Mantua Humanistic Studies
Volume II

Johns, J. 1999. “The ‘House of the Prophet’ and the Concept of the
Mosque.” In Raby, J. and Johns, J. eds. Bayt al-Maqdis: Jerusalem and
Early Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 59-112.
Kamāl, D.S. 1982. al-ʿImāra fī ṣadr al-Islām, al-Hayʾa al-ʿĀmma al-
Miṣriyya li-l-Kitāb, al-Miṣr.
Kuban, D. 1974. Muslim Religious Architecture: The Mosque and Its Early
Development. Leiden: Brill.
Lammens, H. 1926. “Les sanctuaires préislamites dans l’Arabie occiden-
tale.” Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 11/2.
Levi della Vida, G. 1986. “Kulayb b. Rabiʿa”. Encyclopaedia of Islam V:
362.
Pedersen, J. 1991. “Masdjid”. Encyclopaedia of Islam VI: 645-646.
Rutter, E. 1928. The Holy Cities of Arabia. London & New York: G.P.
Putnam’s Sons LTD.
Samhūdī, al. 1908. Wafāʾ al-wafāʾ bi-akhbār dār al-muṣṭafā. al-Miṣr: al-
Maṭbaʿa al-Ādāb wa al-Muʾayyad.
Santi, A. 2015. Il rapporto fra moschea e dār al-Imāra nel periodo protoisla-
mico. MA Thesis: Sapienza University of Rome (unpublished).
Santi, A. 2017. “The Role of Madīna in the Emergence of the Mosque-Dār
al-imāra Combination: a Preliminary Note”. Vicino Oriente 21: 211-223.
Sauvaget, J. 1947. La mosquée omeyyade de Médina. Paris: Vanoest.
Scerrato, U. 1972. Islam, Le Grandi Civiltà. Milano: Mondadori.
Schatch, J. 1991. “Mālik b. Anas”. Encyclopaedia of Islam 6: 262-265.
Ṭabarī, al. 1985-1999. The History of al-Ṭabarī. New York: State Univer-
sity of New York Press.
Tirmidhī, al. 2007. Jāmiʿ. Translated by Abu Khaliyl. Ryadh: Darus-
salam ed.
Wüstenfeld, F. 1869. Geschicte der Stadt Medina. Göttingen: Verlag der
Dieterichschen Buehhaudlung.

116