It seems like you're clueless about Islamic art. The focus on geometry and patterns in art in the Arab and Persian world is a direct result of Islamic theology affecting society.
Not really the origins "Islamic" geometrical art were actually Asian and Indian arts espcially Buddhist arts that were brought back when Islam expanded into Asia, much of it wans't even created by Muslims.
Sri Yantra and Mandala predate Islam.
And I suggest you read too, the changes in "styles" of "Islamic Art" can be directly correlated to the Islamic expansion especially in SE Asia and Maritime Asia.
Islamic art is not only religious art it's for the most part all art that was created in the Islamic world; not art that was created by Muslims.
Quite a bit of it was attributed to Muslims but it was done incorrectly, Islam banned any use of human figures in art so local art styles which were already highly abstract and geometrical had to be evolve into purely abstract art.
So medieval Muslims were big patrons of Arts in their time but Islamic Art on it's own is not "Islamic" in a religious or (monolithic) cultural sense.
I have no idea what you're arguing anymore. Your essentially agreeing with me. Islamic art is highly abstract and geometric DIRECTLY as a result of Islamic theology and Islamic rule over lands in the middle east and the rest of the world. I never said all art originated due to the introduction of Islam. Islamic art is evolved from Roman, Greek and Sasanian art before it, and highly modified by Islamic artists' tendency for math and geometry.
It seems you have some agenda you're trying to push here. What im saying is pretty indisputable.
This is a classic disagreeing comment which is a false disagreement. The parent to your comment did not claim anything about the origins of or influences upon Islamic art. At best you're talking past the post you're responding; at worst you're insulting a religion which currently has 1.6 billion followers. Please don't do either on HN. Thanks.
Islamic art is by it's own definition is quite strictly non-religious, while some in the west insist on calling it "Islamic" (in the same absurd way why Indian numerals are known as Arabic numerals in the UK) it was anything but "Islamic" in the religious sense of the way.
Islamic art is the art that prevailed Islam's ban on art naturalistic and depictive arts, allot of Hindu, Buddhist and even Pagan motifs that built on their abstract nature to survive as non descriptive/naturalistic art which was heavily focused on geometry and symmetry which has already existed in the regions that Islam has spread into, like Mandala https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Mandala.
> at worst you're insulting a religion which currently has 1.6 billion followers
Nobody is insulting anybody. This "criticism/discussion of something mildly related to some religion == insulting billion of followers" needs to stop. You certainly don't speak in the name of 1.6 billion people either.
