In our previous article where we discussed the mind-boggling complexity of our eyes’ retinas. We learned about the ten separate layers of cells, but we did not elaborate on the intricacies of their creation. We also learned how the substance in the cone cells, called rhodopsin, is destroyed on exposure to light and then regenerated in the dark. We thus touched on the wisdom behind the existence of both night and day.

The destruction of rhodopsin is caused by the generation of electricity after its contact with light. This electric impulse is transmitted from cones and rods to either horizontal or bipolar (having two poles) cells. The section between these two different layers of cells is called the outer plexiform layer, where horizontal cells receive electric impulses from rods and cones, and carry them to neighboring bipolar cells. The horizontal cells are also charged with transmitting electricity horizontally between rod and cone cells. The signals make it possible for shapes to be carried to the central nervous system in an appropriate contrast. Other signals are blocked so that the borders of the place of contact with light can be clarified in the brain, which does not receive an excessive load of signals. If it were not for these cells, it would be harder to perceive borders because the line of difference between two different colors would not become clear.

Bipolar cells have two opposite poles. They are created as one of two types, in accordance with their functions: one amplifies generated electric impulses, while the other inhibits the transmission of excessive impulses from around the perceived object to the brain. Bipolar cells provide the contrast necessary for making borders clear. They make clear vision possible, and yet most people have never heard of this wondrous gift inside their retinas!

How is contrast enabled?

Thanks to an innate ability, our brain does not occupy itself with regions that have the same color or the same light. It will not be stimulated much if, for example, a wall is completely white or a car is bright red all over. If, however, there are other colors on the wall, say, a white moon or star on a red background, then there will be more stimulation in the brain. Suppose we place the shape of a crescent on the wall. The stimulated parts of the brain will lie along the sharp ends of the crescent, not in the inside or outside of it. The stimulation in the brain is less associated with non-contrasting regions than contrasts in view. The higher the contrast, i.e. the greater the difference between light and dark areas, the greater the degree of stimulation.

Amacrine cells in the inner plexiform layer of the retina enable horizontal transmission. There are up to 30 different types of these cells, and they carry out at least five to six functions. For instance, one type of Amacrine cell transmits electric impulses from cones and rods to bipolar cells, then to other Amacrine cells, then to ganglion cells, and finally to the brain.

Another type of Amacrine cell responds strongly to the onset of the visual signal, while another to its completion. One other type reveals the difference in light intensity regardless of direction, while still others respond to the movement of a light point in a certain direction in the retina, causing a perception in the brain as to the direction of the light.

Further research may reveal yet more functions. Amacrine cells might have such functions as regulating the intensity of electric impulses specific to each wavelength and generating different levels of impulses for moving or stationary objects.

The function of the ganglion cells in the innermost layer of the retina is to help ensure that the electric impulse generated and corrected in the retina is eventually transmitted to the brain. Three distinct ganglion cells are identified in the retina. These cells are represented with the letters W, X, and Y. W cells are assigned the task of transmitting signals from rod cells, which produce black and white visual signals in the dark. Making up about 40 percent of all ganglion cells, they have diameters of less than 10 micrometers and transmit signals at a speed of 8 m/sec. It is evident that these cells are assigned the task of perceiving objects in the dark as rough, vague shapes.

X cells, on the other hand, transmit electric impulses to the brain, creating precise color pictures of objects. Making up 55 percent of ganglion cells, they have midsize diameters (10-15 micrometers) and transmit signals at a speed of 14 m/sec.

The largest of ganglion cells (with diameters as long as 35 micrometers), Y cells are assigned the task of transmitting instant changes in sight. Making up only 5 percent of ganglion cells, they send signals at speeds of 50 m/sec.

Sending intense signals in split seconds, Y cells inform the central nervous system immediately in case of a threat or an unusual encounter. When our body or eyes face a threat, these cells help protect us by warning the brain to move away from the threat or close our eyelids rapidly. If it were not for these cells, we would not be able to reflexively close our eyes and thus protect them. It’s incredible to ponder how complex these systems are – and how perfectly they’ve been created.

Between layers of cells there also lie layers of network that house neurons and their connections (synapses). These cells too have subgroups trained to carry out specific tasks. All of these cells are built according to certain specifications so that they can transmit stimuli to the brain when they receive light. Extremely severe visual problems develop when even a single layer of these types of cells is missing. Every one of the layers in our eyes is immensely special, and it is hard to imagine them to have been randomly placed there. It should be born in mind that this article simply skipped numerous elements of the retina and their chemical functions. Taking the precise measurements and mechanisms into account, we can only feel greater awe and love in the face of the incredible art devoted to the creation.

The first article can be found at https://fountainmagazine.com/2018/issue-126-november-december-2018/retina-the-mind-boggler

It is very likely for us human beings to lapse or sin even during actions that are meant to serve the good pleasure of God, and as a result of such errors our good works may come to a halt. The Qur’an connects conquest with asking forgiveness as in the following verse: “When God’s help comes, and victory, … then glorify your Lord with His praise, and ask Him for forgiveness” (110:1-3). Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, reports that after the revelation of this verse, the Prophet increased the number of times he asked God for forgiveness as much as to a hundred even he was in the company of others.

This is the very spirit of a prophet. The contrast, however, i.e., to be extremely joyous by achievement and victory is the pharaonic spirit, which can numb attitudes that are fitting to a believer. To say the least, even going somewhere, be it for a good service, in a spirit of boasting or in an air of jovialness or excessive ease are in no way in congruence with virtue. Yes, it is my absolute belief that these sorts of so-called services, when deprived from asking God’s forgiveness or self-introspection, are the main causes for the obstructions we face along the way. We are in such fragile days that society, especially the devoted souls, has to revise themselves once again, in terms of senses, thought, belief and practice. In order to repair the points out of order, and to reconstruct and revive the spiritual state, all should be reviewed, totally. Only after such a serious operation, people will ponder more deeply on those words they utter, just as someone who is breaking his fast feels the water he drinks flowing in, and ascend to the level of asking forgiveness even after a prayer performed in full awareness.

Yes, it is unknown where God’s approval lies. Maybe He approves of a prayer practiced in a stiff posture but with full conformity regarding its principal components. What matters, indeed, is to breathe the manner of being in the presence of God Almighty. That is, the key issue is not attaining a spiritual pleasure, and by no means of which do I mean to say that we should not feel any pleasure. In contrast, I mean, unless we are able to comprehend and develop the conception of “asking forgiveness” after every single accomplishment we reach in the name of both our personal perfection and the perfection of the society, that can be regarded as heedlessness; and, God Almighty does not like heedless people. Even more, sentences like “Such nice deeds has God made us fulfill” may probably be regarded as a remark of associating ourselves as partners with God, perhaps in a rather disguised manner, unless it is accompanied with asking forgiveness. The more we go deeper in asking forgiveness, the less harmless will be those perilous thoughts.

Another aspect of the issue, while we are breasting the calamities confronting us, to utter expressions such as “why have these happened to us?” “what has been wrong with us?” is an act of ingratitude and misbehave towards God. Because of this fact, if those kinds of feelings awake in us, we should muffle them with asking forgiveness. Do we really seek the means to put the blame on ourselves? Do we actually turn our looks at our inner worlds like projectors and incessantly browse there? Does not indeed God assert believers to mind their own business, and not to keep themselves busy with others who follow different ways? that their responsibility is themselves?” (5:105) So, why do not we do our inner control under the light of the maxim “God does not behold your appearance but your hearts,” and check what gets in and out our hearts? Unless these are done, God’s grace upon the accomplishments obtained shall be forgotten, people shall fall in egoism and be deceived, as all these are indeed the delusions Satan whispers creeping up from the right side. Please do have look at, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon Him, as he was entering the Ka’ba as a conqueror. He was so well bent double that His holy forehead was almost touching the saddle of His mount. So, whatever we do, we should quest for His approval. In contrast, while we are doing something, we do it laughing, and wander in vain daydreams and mostly make mistakes.

Yes, God’s approval is enough for us. His presence must occupy the very center of all the things we may be doing, fixing our actions and thoughts towards Him.

Together with massive campaigns to promote Western products, such story-lines and images, perpetuate the inferiorized stereotypes that used to be taught openly in the nineteenth century. Films especially can be seen as an arm of economic domination: ‘Because every film is a part of the economic system, it is also part of the ideological system… cinema and art are branches of ideology. None can escape; somewhere, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle, all have their allotted place’ (Nicholls, 1976, vol.1, p.24).

Because the US got the edge over the Europeans in the mass-market film industry, Hollywood and what it stands for have often been accused, even by Europeans, of cultural imperialism. The English as well as the French often complain that the norms of popular culture in their countries have been ‘taken over’ by the Americans. But the fact is that the success of American styles has been largely due to their commercial skill and power relative to English and French products. In no sense can it be claimed that the American popular culture industry portrays the French or the English negatively. By contrast, it is true to say that Western cinema, particularly American cinema, portrays Orientals, especially Muslims, negatively as a matter of course. All easy, popular stories have goodies and baddies, but must the baddies so often be foreigners and need the foreigners be culturally foreign? In order to be popular, popular films reinforce popular stereotypes-it is a vicious circle, at least for its victims. For those who manage such images, popular cinema is a powerful instrument of cultural suppression and domination. As one writer maintains, the virtual monopoly Hollywood has enjoyed for the last quarter century has made it the single most powerful advocate and purveyor of a simplified, homogenized American culture (Collins, 1989).

Within this Hollywood style in particular, there has been a consistent Middle Eastern stereotype-Arab or Arab-Palestinian, or Turk or Iranian-with negative physical and moral characteristics- lustful, fanatical, irrational, cruel, scheming, unreliable, often cowardly, and always outwitted and defeated. The adventurer-hero, once in the Flash Gordon style of noble warrior on the side of the good (in simple contrast to arch-enemy Ming the Merciless, an Oriental tyrant), is now, typically, a morally imperfect figure, nevertheless worthy of the audience’s full sympathy. The ‘James Bond’ character of the sixties and seventies remains by far the most successful hero-formula. He was designed for British and American audiences to identify with: ‘he is worldly, has diverse but specialized expertise, and has a passion for excitement. He is self-reliant, proud, wedded to privacy, honest, candid, loyal, a man of honour…’ (Simon, 1989). This figure exemplifies, in a form appropriate to the genre of comic caricature, the virtues and ethos which are supposed to give the British and the Americans their directness and sense of humour, their get-up-and-go, their problem-solving success. The villain-figures altogether lack positive characteristics, even any energy or wit they have is of a mad, evil-genius type; their characters lack any exposition; they have no past, their only present is to pose the challenge to the hero. It follows that no audience, not even the non- British/American audience can possibly do otherwise than identify, through the momentum of the story, with the hero and the ethos he represents.

Among recent historical films which have to do with Muslim lands and people, the most popular have been Lawrence of Arabia, Death on the Nile, Midnight Express, and Robin Hood. Of these, only the first has any substantial claim to be a serious, well-made film. In it, Lawrence, a British army officer, stationed in Cairo during World War I, works to ally the Sharif of Makka with the British against the Turks. The Arabs are presented as bumbling, loud, unruly primitives with some barbarian dignity but, in the end, easily bribed, easily tricked. The Turks are utterly vile and disgusting with no saving qualities of any kind. Indeed, the Turkish Pasha in Egypt is, in addition to being, ugly, foul and aggressive, a sodomite- characteristics flatly contradicted by historical evidence (Kirkbride, 1956). The fact that Lawrence was a British spy with very British images about the desert, about Arabs, Turks and Muslims in general, never enters into the film or the consciousness of its audience-there is not the slightest hint that the events might be presented from another point of view and so tell quite a different story. For all the undeniable beauty of some scenes, this film well illustrates the general point made by Raymond Williams that, in spite of their being artistic, works of art still serve an ideological function, that is, serve as propaganda (Williams, 1982). Embedded in Lawrence of Arabia there are all the usual distortions, political and cultural, which less artistic films present also, but crudely.

Midnight Express has been widely and continuously shown since its production in 1978. Though shot mostly in a nineteenth-century British barracks in Malta, the film is set in Istanbul which comes over as a most depressing place – a shock surely for anyone who has actually visited it. David Putnam, the director, freely admits that the film is based on a ‘dishonest book’ (Shipman, 1984, vol.2, p.1103). It wholly misrepresents what really happened to Billy Hase who was sentenced in Turkey for drug smuggling: the story implies that he was innocent; it makes much of his escape, though he was released under an amnesty agreement’ (ibid.). The quality of the director’s attention to the Islamic setting can be judged from the scene in which hairy- eared Hamidou (the actor is in fact an American) is whipping Jimmy with a leather belt while some other Turks are praying to Allah – Jimmy’s yells of pain provide the ‘music’ to the praying chorus (Kael, 1980, p.498).

Much the same kind of attention (and the same intention) is evident in the opening scene of Robin Hood: in a gloomy atmosphere the call to prayer rises from a minaret in Jerusalem, then an abrupt ‘cut’ to a filthy prison where an executioner is chopping off the hand of a prisoner – an illustration for the audience of Islamic justice. The point of these and similar devices of narrative and plot of setting, colour, tone and music – many examples could be given – is not only to present an image of Islam and Muslims that is as negative and humiliating as possible. It is also intended to contrast that negative with the positive virtues of the Western characters portrayed within the same story: the audience are required (and expected) to conclude that ‘the Americans, and the Englishmen and the Swedes, are civilized and sensitive…’ (Kael, 1980, p.498).

References

• COLLINS, J. (1959) Uncommon cultures: Popular Culture and Post Modernism, Routledge, London.
• KAEL, P. (1980) When the lights Go Down, Holt, Rinehart & Wilson, New York.
• KIRKBRIDE, Sir As. (1956) A Crackle of Thorns: Experiences in the Middle East, John Murray, London.
• NICHOLLS, B. (1976) (ed.) Movies and Methods, University of California Press.
• SHIPMAN, D. (1984) The Story of Cinema, Hodder & Stoughton, London..
• SIMON, S.R. (1989) The Middle East in Crime Fiction, Lilian Barber Press, New York.
• WILLIAMS, R. (1982) The Sociology of Culture, Fontana, London.