Islamic art, as a rich and complex manifestation of Islamic civilization, has always been a subject of debate and controversy among scholars. This research, focusing on the viewpoints of prominent art historians and theorists, undertakes a logical analysis and systematic evaluation of the definitions provided for "Islamic art." Given the dispersion and the lack of a single, agreed-upon, and comprehensive definition among experts, this study, with a critical and historical approach, examines the conceptual developments and evolution of this term over many centuries. The key question of this research is: considering the historical approach, which of the fundamental definitions of Islamic art possesses greater logical and theoretical solidity, validity, and strength?



To answer this question, this study critiques and analyzes the aforementioned definitions by applying the well-known logical criteria of definition formation: comprehensiveness (inclusion of all instances), exclusivity (prevention of non-instances from entering), clarity (transparency and freedom from ambiguity), and non-circularity (independence from the term being defined). The findings of the research indicate that the various definitions each have their own strengths and weaknesses. For example, Coonell's definition is weak in all four criteria. Grabar's definition, by considering cultural diversity, enjoys high comprehensiveness but shows weakness in clarity and exclusivity. The definition by Ettinghausen and Brand, emphasizing Islamic history and culture, benefits from good exclusivity but is weak in terms of comprehensiveness, clarity, and non-circularity. Price's definition, formed based on geo-ideological criteria, has strong exclusivity but lacks sufficient comprehensiveness and clarity. Al-Bahnasi's definition is evaluated as strong in clarity and non-circularity, but due to its ethnic limitations and focus on Arab culture, it lacks the necessary comprehensiveness. Kenney's definition, focusing on visual elements, has clarity but is unable to provide sufficient comprehensiveness and exclusivity. In contrast, the definition by Bloom and Blair is evaluated as strong in comprehensiveness and exclusivity, is at an acceptable level in terms of clarity, and is also defensible regarding the non-circularity criterion.



Ultimately, it can be concluded that each perspective covers only a part of the complex meaning of Islamic art, and none alone provides a definition fully consistent with all logical criteria. The research method of this study is descriptive-analytical, and the data collection tool is based on the study and note-taking from library sources.