{The Nature of Islam}[23rd April 1991]

[Redbook9:182-183][19910423:0920b]{The Nature of Islam}[23rd April 1991]

19910423.0920

[continued]

*Why does the starting-point of Islam at c[irca] [2048]MU~ seem to characterise its entire cycle – why doesn’t it just circle round like cultures which ‘started’ at C? Well, that just seems to be the way it is – compare the attachment of Rome and of the U.S.A., both of which started at [2048]G~, to democratic and republican ideas (or at least to ideas of civilised behaviour towards people in the case of Imperial Rome).**

It is not quite enough to say that Islam is characterised by MU~*** at least up to soon after 1536[ce]: after all, Rome and the USA started at [2048]G~ and yet neither was or is particularly original in artistic terms.****

*{ref [[Redbook9:116][19910415:0840j]{[Islamic Art –] The Word (2) [continued (28)]}[15th April 1991],] 116,

[[Redbook9:118-119][19910415:0840m]{[Islamic Art –] Music [continued (3)]}[15th April 1991]&f?,] 119

(& see [[Redbook9:124][19910415:0840z]{[Islamic Art –] Visual Arts}[15th April 1991]&f,] 124-5

[[Redbook9:133-134][19910420:0953h]{Art Cycles (2)}[20th April 1991],] 133[:]

order of art)}

**[sic – for their time, perhaps!]

***{cf [[Redbook9:236-237][19910501:0800#]{The Nature of Islam}[1st May 1991],] 236}

****{But see USA’s postwar modern art?}

[& in fact USA’s postwar everything creative & innovative]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger13for14012025]