Supposedly, If I was the architect of this building and I removed its minaret and made all claims that it is a mosque, would people agree it is? Well that's for one to find out. What I'm saying is, though I do not have the professional background or rights to judge whether it really "looks" like a genuine mosque, or not, but in all obvious answers, to have the minaret removed it doesn't look like one anymore. Saved by the thin tall margin of the minaret, it's pretty lucky to say it's a mosque, unless if you have a peek inside...

The Minaret & the Mosque

First, the Minaret is regarded by Muslims as a tower to call for prayer. It is usually built as high as the highest to be able to call out the entire town or village for prayer time. Now with more "high tech gadgets" and better equipment, we're now able to simply put loud speakers right at the very tip of the tower without having to go all the way to the top and tire ourselves. Maybe technology does help and improve our lives, but it abruptly deteriorates the tradition, entirely.

Oh yeah right, it's easy to shout out criticisms and point the wooden log in the eye without even hearing the mouth of its creators speak; "A Malay design would not make a Chinese convert feel at home. Middle-Eastern imagery would be too alien to our culture. Its design had to sit comfortably in a multiracial, multi-religious country. And it also had to signal to the Muslim community that it is a mosque." Maybe the mosque's design from the architect's point of view might have been saved by the bell but what's important is that we should have an open mind about this and that architecture is evolving rapidly. Like or not, buildings will change, and that Singapore is a racial and multicultural society. Buildings now are becoming cheaper to maintain and build, aesthetically or functionally "better" time after time - Even its religious functions and core traditions? Why should architecture change, define and shape a religious tradition? That is hard to answer. I don't know too, but it lingers at the top of my head.

The architect also explains that the floor plans and various screens were inspired by Muslim traditions. I gotta admit, after reading his concepts and ideas, I gave a big "Oh I see" expression, which I think really nails it this time round. But then again, a little critic side of my mind spoke out that one might not understand its derived forms and details, but has to hear a word from the architect, when ultimately architecture is a silent visual presentation. Architecture should speak for itself and interpret its identity and originality, but instead this mosque doesn't.

Inevitably the design seems to be a little superficial or one of my Muslim friends might call it, "Very 2 Dimensional". I'm very sure the architects will not be standing at the entrance of the mosque and speak out its concept for everyone to hear. All the ideas and concepts are going to be visual and should be seen and easily interpreted by many laymen, or those who do not know about the mosque's design. In this case, as quoted by my Muslim friend who attends the same mosque every Friday; "It just doesn't seem to be the case." Until I showed him the architect's concept, he also gave a big "Oh I see". But in a certain way, we're fools to judge a book by its cover.