About 3500 years ago in Egypt, Moses began to preach the religion that calls for submission to God, which he inherited from his forefather Abraham. According to the belief in that era, the ruler was considered a son of God, even a god on earth.

The Pharaoh said (to his chiefs): “Let me kill Moses, and let him call upon his Lord! I fear lest he alter your religion (replacing it with his), or lest he provoke disorder in the land” (Mu’min 40:26). What is meant by “religion” as mentioned in the verse refers to the civilization, i.e. the overall social order, of that society. The pharaoh was rather concerned about his own reign, like many other tyrants, but he professed as if he was concerned about his people and that he wanted to get rid of Moses for their good.

The following verse expresses this fact: “They said: ‘These two men are surely sorcerers intent on driving you out of your land with their sorcery, and doing away with your exemplary way of life’” (Taha 20:63).

Then the Pharaoh increased his torment to the believers and closed up their temple. In that case, God commanded Moses and his brother to take their houses as places of worship (a center of learning) (10:87). The essential judgment on worship was to be observed in the temple, but the command to pray at home was a special judgment to be implemented during this period of torment.

We are currently facing another crisis, though entirely different from the persecution that Moses and his followers endured, that is requiring us to temporarily close our houses of worship and instead pray at home. In these days of Coronavirus, all faith communities, including Muslims, Jews, and Christians, abide by this special judgment. For Muslims even the congregational Friday Prayer, which all males without valid excuse must strictly attend, is suspended. Everybody prays at home instead for the same reason of protection from harm. Whether they observe prayers or not, most people are at an obligatory retreat.

From a believer’s perspective, these days are offering us some serious food for thought. Is Coronavirus on a mission sent by God to warn people who exceed in wrongdoing? Are we being told to come to our senses, to make up our minds, step back from wrong, act in accordance with our purpose of creation, not neglect our families for the sake of greedy pursuits, and live in a way to be eligible for eternal happiness?

Two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, taught his people about belief in God. He was able to preach for only a very short amount of time, only to be accepted by a limited number of people around him all of whom suffered and were exterminated under the cruel Roman Empire. Yet, his message was not silenced; by the third century after he was gone, a great majority of people ruled by Roman Empire accepted his invitation. Muslims believe Jesus Christ was ascended to the heavens to be sent back to complete his mission as a renovator of faith in God in the Latter Times in the way of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who, according to some Muslim scholars, is the “advocate” (Paraclete – or Parakletos, the Praised One) mentioned in John 14:16. It is believed that Jesus Christ will lead his followers – now dispersed in many denominations more so than any other tradition has [1] – and will unite them back in worship. Coronavirus has struck at a time that is most special to the Christian community, and thus giving them an opportunity to reflect on faith. It was the time of Lent, a six-week period which ended on April 11. Observing Christians have sought closeness to God by observing different forms of worship such as fasting, praying, and supporting the needy while hoping to be more receptive to the call of revival by COVID-19. Taking this opportunity, it is my hope that Christians, who are adorned with these lofty qualities, had a happy Easter holiday, which was on April 12 this year. I also celebrate the Passover holiday of the Jewish community, which was on April 8.

As a matter of fact, even the timing of this global retreat is worthy of attention; similar to Christian Lent and Easter, Muslims are in the midst of the holy three months of Rajab, Shaban, and Ramadan, while the Jewish community have been celebrating Passover within these days of retreat. Surely the followers of other traditions such as Buddhism and Hinduism will evaluate this period in meaningful retrospect. The indigenous people of Canada pray as follows:

 “O our exalted Creator! We wish you to be with us. We wish you to help our diseased ones and our friends who are far away. When we lose hope, please remind us to be thankful for the blessings of water which gives life and the earth which bears us. O God, please help us know that all people are our relatives!”

Muslims have not undergone as huge a diversification as has been the case in Christianity in terms of the essentials of faith. However, many Muslim nations have failed to duly understand the true message of the religion, could not interpret its commandments, nor could they practice it properly. As those in power did not govern them well for a very long time, many countries of the Muslim world have lagged behind with regards to civilization, ethics, culture, and public administration. In a way, they have alienated themselves to the essence of their own values. Interestingly, social studies indices that conduct research on which countries perform better on establishing institutions that reflect Islamic values and principles, there is not a single Muslim country among the first thirty [2]. There are countries like Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, and Canada among the first ten. The brilliant face of Islam entered a period of eclipse in the Muslim world, and then the eclipse got to be constant. Accordingly, Corona is virtually making the following call to Muslims: “You did not thoroughly understand and practice religion God revealed to you by means of His Messenger. Come back home, you need a revival. Make up your mind to make wise use of this opportunity. Evaluate the oncoming opportunity of Ramadan well in your home. Try to make up for things you neglected for years. Make self-criticism, come to grips with yourself! Become repentant and ask forgiveness!”

May this holy Ramadan, the month of the Holy Qur’an, be a means of God’s good pleasure and happiness for all Muslims.

With Coronavirus, and for that matter with all such tribulations, perhaps God Almighty makes us realize that He has not ceased to care for the humanity He created: “Shall We take away this Reminder from you (and leave you to your own devices), because you are a people wasteful (of your God-given faculties and committing excesses)?” (Zukhruf 43:5). Thus, He gives an opportunity to people before the Day of Judgment to repent and experience a “revival” now, so that we can be absolved “there.”

Notes

1. De Glasenapp. 1954. Les cinq grandes religions, Paris, Payot, 1954, p. 415.
2. http://islamicity-index.org/wp

Though we cannot see humor, like faith, we perceive it all around us.

Once upon a time there was a planet in an unknown corner of the vast universe. For a long time, this planet was distinguished by having inhabitants with no sense of humor at all! This sounds like a joke, doesn’t it? But I am here to tell history, not jokes. This planet’s history was studied in three eras, each having a different state of humor: the Ancient Period, the Middle Period, and the Modern Period.

I. Modern period

The inhabitants of this planet were extremely serious, conscientious, sincere, hard-working, and moral. Besides all these good qualities, they considered humor as a pathological phenomenon. They never laughed or jested, kidded or joked. There was no room for any kind of humor.

A small minority, who had some feeling for humor, occasionally laughed and joked. However, their behavior was extremely alarming to everyone else. These few people were called “laughers,” and they were promptly hospitalized. What was so obnoxious about their behavior, aside from the strange noises they made and the peculiar facial expressions they bore while “laughing,” were the utterly pathological things they said! They seemed to lose all sense of reality. They said things which were totally irrational, indeed sometimes logically self-contradictory. In short, they behaved exactly like anyone else who was deluded or hallucinating, hence why they were put into hospitals.

More importantly, it was definitely verified that this “laughter” was somewhat contagious and that certain individuals became laughers for the first time in their life only after repeated contact with other laughers. Indeed, this was another thing which made the laughers so dangerous. They were not only hallucinating themselves, but tended to pass these hallucinations to others! Hence they had to be hospitalized, not only for their own sakes, but also for the sake of the society.

In the hospitals, doctors tried quite a number of different treatment regimens to cure their pathologic behavior. Besides many unsuccessful treatment attempts, one drug, called “laughazone,” was finally found to kill the symptoms of humor. Almost immediately upon administration, the patient would stop laughing as well as quit the verbal activity called “joking,” and would instead start screaming. The patient would just lie there screaming, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, and month after month. And the most amazing thing of all is that not once during this screaming period did the patient ever laugh or make a joke or even smile. They thought this drug was really phenomenal!

The problem with “laughazone,” though, was that its effects were temporary. After the months long treatment, the patient would, for some unknown reason, fall into a deep state of depression for several weeks, and sometimes longer. After this, he would gradually convalesce, and his original symptoms of laughing and joking would return. So, the doctors had to put the patient through the treatment again and again.

II. Ancient and middle period

The Modern Period contained no literature at all on laughter, except in textbooks and periodicals on abnormal psychology. The Middle Period, on the contrary, was chock-full of laugh-literature. This literature contained absolutely no material which contemporary laughers called “funny.” Indeed the writings were written in a wholly sane, serious, scholarly, and philosophic mood. The writings consisted mainly of analysis and commentary on the ancient texts. The ancient writings, unlike those of the middle period, were totally non-philosophical. They never spoke about laughter or anything like that. They were simply what the Middle Period called “funny.” These archaic manuscripts contained all sorts of incomprehensible and contradictory material called “jokes” or “funny stories.” Therefore, philosophers of the Middle Period extolled the Ancient Period, and referred to it as “the golden age of humor, when men could freely laugh and joke and really enjoy life.” Appreciating the ancient writings required a certain, almost mystical, faculty called “humor.” What was so puzzling was that humor could not flourish in the wholly serious and rational atmosphere of the Middle Period.

So, the Middle period witnessed many discussions on humor. One such discussion which had taken place between the mystic-humorists and the skeptical anti-humorists went as follows:

The Mystic-Humorists claimed that the only reliable way humor could be known was by direct perception: “We can see humor in many situations. Life is permeated with humor, if you can only see it.”

The skeptical Anti-Humorists said, “So, you claim you can see humor! Tell me, what color is it?”

The Mystic-Humorists laughed and said, “Humor doesn’t have any color!”

The skeptics continued: “Oh, so you can see it only in black and white! Well, then, what shape is it?”

“It doesn’t have any form or shape.”

“Then I am confused! Is humor visible or invisible?”

“Of course it is invisible!”

“But I thought you just said that you can see it. Didn’t you say that you could see the humor of certain situations?”

“Well, yes, I said that, but I didn’t mean ‘see’ in the literal sense of ‘see with your eyes.’ Ocular vision really has nothing to do with it. I used ‘see’ in the sense of directly perceive, not see with the eyes. Perception, although as direct as vision, is really through a different sense altogether.”

“A different sense? Which sense is it – hearing? If so, what does humor sound like? Or is it smell or taste or touch or what? With which of the five senses do you perceive humor, or is it a combination of more than one of them?”

“No, it is not any one of these five senses, nor is it a combination of them. It is a totally different sense. In a way, it is a nonphysical sense. We call this sense the ‘sense of humor.'”

“Good God, you literally mean a nonphysical sense? In other words, you mean it is something occult, like telepathy or clairvoyance? But scientific integrity requires us not to believe in anything occult; hence we cannot but believe that this humor is something totally unreal, a mere figment of the imagination.”

In vain the Humor-Mystics protested that there was nothing the least bit occult about humor and said: “If only once you could see what humor was, you would realize that it is the most natural thing in the world, and also that it is delightfully pleasant.”

Another thing, the “Mystic-Humorists” claimed was that the label “Mystic-Humorist” was most misleading. They claimed that there was nothing at all mystical about humor, even though it might seem mystical to those who lacked the immediate sense of humor. They said, “Why not rather call us laughers, which is, in fact, what we are.” And so, the term “Mystic-Humorist” was gradually replaced by “laugher.” Later, this term would be used in the Modern Period as explained above.

Another discussion during the Middle Period was between the “laughers” and the Faith-Humorists, who believed that reason could be somewhat helpful in understanding humor but that an act of faith was crucial. Essentially, Faith-Humorists did not take a hostile, skeptical attitude toward the laughers, but instead believed in them wholeheartedly. They knew that the laughers were in direct contact with that which the Faith-Humorists could only reason about and accept on faith. However, they were heavily criticized by the “laughers” because of their approach to the issue:

You seem to think that knowledge about laughter is somehow more important than the ability to laugh.

You take an approach which is far too objective and scientific. You read all the literature you can find on the philosophy of humor. You perform elaborate linguistic analyses of what the word “humor” could possibly mean. The only way you will ever find out what it really means is by acquiring a sense of humor.

The most insidious error of all is to try to learn humor by merely imitating the outward forms of the laughers. You must remember that the activity of laughter is only a manifestation of humor. Humor itself is something entirely within the spirit.

Another thing that you do out of mere imitation is this ridiculous practice of memorizing jokes. You commit thousands upon thousands of jokes to memory and you think you are thereby acquiring a sense of humor! But memorizing these jokes is absolutely pointless for you until, and unless, you have acquired a sense of humor.

You combine the two techniques of joke memorization and forced laughter, and then you are sure you have matured. But God Almighty, how wrong you are! You go forth into the world claiming yourselves to be authentic laughers. Nothing sabotages our cause more than this! The skeptics who meet you are almost rightfully reinforced in their belief that humor is something which is a mere sham and delusion. Yes, the pseudo-laughers like you are the major cause of the disappearance of humor from this planet.

As laughter disappeared more and more from this planet, the people of the Middle Period realized that this was a tragic loss rather than a gain, and they did everything possible to stem the tide. Only at the very end of the Middle Period did it first occur to mankind that laughter, far from being something good, could actually be something totally undesirable. People started saying: “Maybe we should stop trying to stem the tide. Maybe the tide is our greatest blessing, although we don’t know it. Maybe it is high time that this silly archaic thing called ‘humor’ should disappear. Maybe laughter was all right for savages, and we are now becoming civilized!” Then the idea fully occurred to mankind that humor was but another form of psychosis; laughter was a type of psychopathology. Thus was ushered the Modern Period.

III. Back to the modern period

As we discussed earlier, people of the Modern Period had to accept the painful fact that the laughers were not permanently curable, at least for the foreseeable future. This fact split the medical opinion into two divergent camps; hospitals, similarly, split into two widely divergent types. Hospitals of Type I were called “laugh-scream hospitals”; those of Type II were “pure-laugh hospitals.” In the laugh-scream hospitals, the doctors realized that no patient was permanently curable. Hence, once a patient was admitted, they were admitted for life. All that could be done was to administer the laughazone treatment over and over for the rest of the patient’s life. The discipline at these hospitals was ironclad: no patient was ever released, and there was to be no letup in treatment. It was better for the patient to face reality and scream than to withdraw into his fantasy world of humor and laugh.

The philosophy of the pure-laugh hospitals was, however, entirely different. They agreed with the laugh-scream hospitals that no laugher was permanently curable. But they thought: so why not let the patient enjoy his life? Was it really all that bad that he had these fantasies? Similar to the laugh-scream hospitals, patients were incarcerated for life. But they were given no treatments whatsoever! The patients in the pure-laugh hospitals were very happy. Everything possible was done for them to ensure their happiness. The pure-laugh hospitals, in the true sense of the word, were merely isolation centers. Their only function was to prevent the inmates from infecting the outside world with their laughter-psychosis.

Thus the conditions inside the pure-laugh hospitals were close to idyllic, except for one thing! Good God, the patients cried “How unfair that our brothers are screaming themselves to death in the laugh-scream hospitals while we are free to enjoy our laughter. Those doctors at the laugh-scream hospitals! They believe that they are helping their patients! They are the maddest of all! We must find a way to free our brothers so that they can enjoy laughter as we do.”

Occasionally, patients would escape from the laugh-scream hospitals, and they would immediately rush to the pure-laugh hospitals, where they were cheerfully admitted. As the patients in the pure-laugh hospitals increased in number day by day, at last, they managed to find the loopholes in the system. It didn’t take them long to organize raids on the laugh-scream hospitals, through which they freed all the laugh-wards, and brought all the patients back to the pure-laugh hospitals. The laugh-scream hospitals eventually went out of existence.

However, laughers were not satisfied with this success. They were bothered by the thought of those outside the laugh-communities who never knew the joy of laughter. What could be done for them? Just about nothing, they decided, since the old loopholes they had used to escape were taken care of. But here, providence intervened in a very remarkable way. What happened was this:

The standard of living inside the laugh-hospital communities was far higher than outside. One by one the outsiders pretended to be laughers in order that they might be incarcerated in the laugh-communities. The pretended-laughers knew perfectly that they had no sense of humor, and they couldn’t have cared less; they deliberately lied just for the purpose of joining the laugh-communities with their high standards of living. What happened was that the lying-laughers, being surrounded by an enormous majority of genuine laughers, very soon caught the laughing sickness themselves, and in but a few weeks turned completely into genuine laughers. And so one non-laugher after another lied his way into the laugh-communities, and shortly, became a genuine laugher. Then finally, even the psychiatrists succumbed, and no non-laughers were left behind. The entire planet was now one huge laugh-hospital, and the Modern Period that was devoid of humor became the funniest era ever.

This story was adapted from Richard Smullyan’s This Book Needs No Title: A Budget of Living Paradoxes by (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1980). Copyright (c) 1980 by Raymond M. Smullyan (Acquired necessary permissions from the author).

Nural is a graduate research assistant in computer science at the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

However, a recent book, Islamic Science and Making of the European Renaissance, by George Saliba calls these arguments into question. This book prompted me to think more critically about this long, accepted argument. Can this prominent scholar of Islam or his famous book, Tahafut al-Falasifah, be held responsible, single handedly, for causing an age of decline in the scientific activities in the Muslim World?

Many orientalists argue that Ghazali’s Tahafut is responsible for the age of decline in science in the Muslim World. This is their key thesis as they attempt to explain the scientific and intellectual history of the Islamic world. It seems to be the most widely accepted view on the matter not only in the Western world but in the Muslim world as well. George Saliba, a Professor of Arabic and Islamic Science at Columbia University who specializes in the development of astronomy within Islamic civilization, calls this view the “classical narrative” (Saliba, 2007). However, interesting discoveries in the second half of the twentieth century by historians of science challenged many of the assertions of this classical narrative. An example of such discoveries is the strong connections between Ibn al-Shatir, a famous Damascene astronomer of the fourteenth century, and the Renaissance astronomer Copernicus (Roberts, 1957). If Ghazali had killed science in Islam in the twelfth century, then al-Shatir’s work from the fourteenth century could not have been so influential on Copernicus’s work. Saliba challenges almost all of the major tenets of the classical narrative on the basis of (1) a critical examination of historical evidence, some of which is quite recent, and (2) the results of his own long-term research in Islamic astronomy.

Saliba’s response to the question

In making his argument, Saliba first notes that most of the orientalists operate under the assumption that there must be a sharp conflict between religion and science. This paradigm is probably based on their European experience. To them, al-Ghazali represents the orthodox tradition in Islam and with Tahafut, written in the late eleventh century (between 1091 and 1095), they assume that orthodox religious thought won a decisive victory over rational, scientific thought. From that point on they assume that science in Islam declined, and the Islamic world did not produce anything significant in terms of scientific advancements.

Saliba argues that both of these assumptions are false. First, the European paradigm of conflict between religion and science does not really apply to the Islamic world. The religion of Islam encourages rational and scientific inquiry. Therefore, Muslims see no insurmountable contradictions between their faith and natural laws. Hence, studying religion and studying natural sciences does not create a conflict for Muslims.

Secondly, many of the scientists in the Islamic world were also religious authorities at the same time. A few examples among such scholars are Ibn al-Nafis, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi ,and Ibn al-Shatir who lived in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and made important contributions to such diverse scientific disciplines as mathematics, astronomy, medicine, physics and philosophy. In fact, these scholars were regarded primarily as religious figures by the general public with side interests in sciences. Early Muslim scholars did not hesitate to acquire scientific knowledge wherever they could find it, whether it be in Indian civilization, in Greek civilization, or in Persian civilization. Not only did they acquire these sciences through translation, but they also critically examined them in a comprehensive way. Making corrections and improvements and even introducing new disciplines, they showed a high degree of ownership and maturity. This led to a remarkable period of creativity and rapid advancements in many scientific disciplines in the Islamic world beginning as early as the eighth century (Saliba, 2007).

Contrary to the classical narrative, scientific advancements in the Islamic world did not stop or even slow down after Ghazali. Saliba gives many examples of sophisticated scientific achievements in the Islamic world well after Ghazali. Based on his life-long research in the area, he concludes that the golden age of Islamic astronomy was in the post-Ghazali period from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century. Discoveries by Western historians of science in the second half of the twentieth century show that there are surprisingly strong connections between Copernicus (sixteenth century) and Muslim astronomers from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, such as Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and Ibn al-Shatir (Roberts, 1957; Saliba, 2007). These discoveries were shocking to many in the scholarly community who did not expect to find any transfer of knowledge from the Islamic civilization to Europe in the post-Ghazali period. Unfortunately, this new information has not been sufficiently digested by today’s scholars and does not yet generally appear in secondary sources.

Saliba also provides examples from other disciplines, such as medicine, that show that a high level of scientific production took place in more than one discipline in the Islamic world in the post-Ghazali period. How is it that such important scientific materials could have been overlooked by the experts? According to Saliba a major reason for modern historians of science to have missed the large amount of scientific production in Islamic world in the post-Ghazali period is the damage caused by the classical narrative. Most historians simply weren’t looking for it because the classic narrative stipulated that science in Islam was dead after Ghazali. Even though some new discoveries have been made, there are still many scientific works waiting to be studied from that period. As an example of these omissions, Berggren, the author of Episodes in the Mathematics of Medieval Islam, says that he used this title for his book as opposed to The History of Mathematics in Medieval Islam simply because “Such a book could not be written yet, for so much material remains unstudied that we do not know enough of the whole story” (Berggren, 1986).

The Content and the Method of the Tahafut

Even though Saliba’s arguments and evidence are quite convincing to doubt or reject the common narrative, I wanted to go straight to the source-the Tahafut-and have a closer look to see if it might be a book that can be held responsible for killing the science or scientific thought in Islamic civilization.

In Tahafut, Ghazali refutes twenty philosophical doctrines. Using a scientific, or in this context philosophical, method, he first explains those philosophical doctrines before criticizing them. His explanations were so comprehensive and so clear that he made them accessible to non-philosophers, and thus, his ideas became generally better known in the Islamic world. Next, he gave arguments to refute those doctrines. In doing so, he used the very same logical and philosophical principles and arguments that philosophers used in the first place to support their claims. Ghazali mainly argues that the philosophers who proposed the doctrines that conflict with religious principles failed to provide valid and rigorous proofs for their propositions. Hence, he attacked their methodologies using their own tools and principles.

An important point Ghazali makes in Tahafut is that he has no problems with the philosophers’ mathematics, astronomical sciences, or logic. He says (Marmura 2000, p. 11):

Regarding mathematical sciences, there is no sense in denying them or disagreeing with them. For these reduce in the final analysis to arithmetic and geometry. As regards to logical sciences, these are concerned with examining the instrument of thought in intelligible things. There is no significant disagreement encountered in these.

Therefore, it is clear that his views could not be used to justify a position against the study of mathematical sciences.

To give the reader a sense of what kinds of philosophical doctrines the Tahafut is concerned with and aims to refute, a selected few out of the twenty are listed below (Marmura 2000, p. 10, 11). The list shows that the questions discussed in Tahafut concern some of the most fundamental issues in theology, particularly in the Islamic theology.

The first problem: On refuting their doctrine of the world’s pre-eternity.

The sixth: On refuting their doctrine denying the divine attributes.

The tenth: On showing that upholding a materialist doctrine and the denial of the Maker is a necessary consequence [of what they hold].

The twentieth: On refuting their denial of bodily resurrection and the accompanying bodily pleasures and pains in paradise and hell.

Concluding Remarks

When I discuss the question given in the title of this article with my colleagues, and I argue that it would be unfair to hold Ghazali or Tahafut responsible for the decline of science in Islam, I sometimes hear the objection that “perhaps the content or the method of Tahafut may not justify this conclusion, but this is not how people understood it.” But then, one must consider the evidence given by Saliba that there is a large amount of sophisticated scientific production in the Islamic world well after Ghazali, and there is still much more to be discovered. Considering the content of Tahafut and the scientific advances in post-Ghazali period, I have a hard time convincing myself that the classical narrative is the ultimate truth on the matter. This position is supported by the fact that it is usually not realistic to try to explain most major social and historical transformations in terms of a single person, a book, an event, or the like. According to Saliba, the decline in Islamic science was the result of a combination of many internal and external reasons that took place several centuries after Ghazali.

Finally, one may wonder why this question is important or relevant. After all, these things happened a long time ago, and we have to deal with the current realities. One answer would be that there are many lessons to be learned from the history. And of course if the correct version of the history is not available, conclusions will be flawed. If anybody is interested in reviving science and scientific activities in a society, there is much that can be learned from the early Islamic period when there was a remarkable rapid and widespread rise in science, as well as lessons from the later periods of Islamic history when the Islamic world fell behind in scientific production. Some researchers are beginning to realize how much damage the classical narrative has caused in understanding the general history and the development of the modern science. It is always useful to have a critical mind to question and reevaluate assumptions when they do not conform to the evidence.

References

• Berggren, J. L. 1986. Episodes in the Mathematics of Medieval Islam, New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Marmura, Michael E. (translator). 2000. Al-Ghazali The Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahafut al-Falasifah) Provo: Brigham Young University Press.
• Roberts, Victor . 1957. “The Solar and Lunar Theory of Ibn al-Shatir: A pre-Copernican Copernican Model,” Isis 48:428-432.
• Saliba, George. 2007. Islamic Science and Making of the European Renaissance, Cambridge: MIT Press.

There are seven chapters in the book. The first chapter summarizes the basic tenets of the classical narrative, then criticizes it listing many questions which the classical narrative cannot satisfactorily answer. Islamic civilization’s contribution to the development of modern science is so immense that it is impossible to completely ignore this part of the history in any serious discussion of the general history of science or civilization. The problem arises in assessing the importance and the nature of Islamic science. Generally accepted views of the classical narrative go something along these lines: Islamic civilization was a desert civilization and began to develop scientific thought only when it came in contact with more advanced civilizations (Persian, Indian and Greek and most importantly Greek). A vital component of the rise of science in Islamic civilization was the remarkable translation movement that took place during the early period of Abbasid times (750–900 CE), in which many important scientific books of other civilizations, particularly those of ancient Greeks, were translated into Arabic. The classical narrative says by learning Greek science through this translation activity, Islamic science reached its golden age while Greek science was neglected under Byzantine rule. Adherents of the classical narrative generally assume that Islamic civilization did not go much beyond translation, did not make original contributions to scientific knowledge or produced any new science of its own. They also assume this period of the golden age did not last long and came to an end with Ghazali’s “attack” on philosophers in his major work Tahafut al-Falasifa (The Incoherence of Philosophers). They assume that Islamic science began to decline with Ghazali while there was an awaking in Europe, sometimes called the Renaissance of the twelfth century, when Europeans began to translate major Arabic philosophical and scientific texts into Latin. Some of these texts had already been translated from much earlier Greek and Sanskrit texts into Arabic. So, they reconnected with their Greco-Roman legacy. The classical narrative says from that point on Europe had no need for Islamic science, hence the role of Islamic civilization was to simply translate and preserve the ancient Greek science and make it available to Europeans later. Thus, according to this view all the roots of modern science were European. The classical theory also attempts to explain the process by which the acquisition of Greek science by the Muslim world occurred. There are a few versions of this proposal which are called “contact theory,” “pocket transmission theory,” and “translation through Syriac medium first.”

In this first chapter of the book, Saliba argues that the classical narrative is an oversimplification of what actually happened in reality and fails to answer many fundamental questions. The first problem is about origins. He argues none of the proposed methods of translation is convincing to explain the reasons why, how, and when Muslims acquired Greek science. In terms of the nature and quality of translations, Saliba gives examples of sophistication and maturity exhibited by the Muslim scientists that is well beyond what would be expected from an early generation of translators who are struggling to understand a foreign science. Moreover, already in the early period of the translation movement Muslim scientists produced original new science such as algebra by al-Khwarizmi (830 CE), remarkable advances by Habash a-Hasib (850 CE) in the field of trigonometry and mathematical projections that go far beyond what was known from Indian and Greek sources, and developed decimal fractions. He argues such advances could not happen suddenly. There must be a longer tradition of scientific activity in the Islamic world and real motivations for the rise of science which cannot be explained by the classical narrative.

Not only does the classical narrative fail to explain beginnings but also more recent developments as well. Saliba gives many examples from various scientific disciplines to show that the Islamic science did not decline after Ghazali. Astronomy is a perfect counterexample to this thesis of the classical narrative, and it is not the only one. In fact, there were so many advances in astronomy in the Islamic world after Ghazali that Saliba calls the post-Ghazali period as the golden age of Islamic astronomy. Recent research in the second half of the twentieth century shows that astronomy has particularly interesting connections to the European Renaissance. Saliba comments that post-Ghazali works by the Muslim scientists were not sufficiently considered by the adherents of the classical narrative because of their pre-supposition that no significant science of any interest could have been produced in this period. This caused unfortunate damage in terms of understanding the post-Ghazali period in the Islamic world as well as the European Renaissance itself.

In the second chapter, Saliba proposes an alternative thesis/narrative to the classical narrative in terms of the beginnings of the rise of scientific activities in the Islamic world. His thesis is based on the writings of Al-Nadim (full name Abu al-Faraj Muhammad b. Abi Ya’qub Ishaq al-Nadim) who wrote about intellectual history of the early Islamic period. Saliba also supports his thesis with well known historical facts. In summary, the alternative narrative proposes that there was already a significant amount of interest and activity in the nascent Islamic civilization before the translation movement began. Rather than learning science from others (Greeks) just because they came into contact with them, the Islamic world actively sought those sciences because of a keen interest to advance their own scientific knowledge. Unlike the classical narrative, the alternative thesis argues that Muslim scientists already had a high level of knowledge and maturity when the translation activities began. This is evidenced by the high quality of translations of highly technical materials, and corrections of errors in the original sources. The main societal factors for the rise of science in the new civilization are listed as a) the need for people (bureaucrats) with a high level of scientific knowledge in administrations, and b) competition between those people to acquire higher levels of scientific knowledge to be able to advance in the ranks of governments.

In the next chapter, Saliba gives detailed examples, mostly from astronomy, to show how critically Muslim scientists received and reacted to the Greek science. They noticed observational errors and internal inconsistencies in Greek texts. They also pointed out more philosophical and foundational errors and contradictions. Muslim scientists showed a high level of sophistication, maturity and critical spirit. They had a comprehensive look at the Greek texts they translated and studied them in relation to one another. Saliba argues that it is not possible to explain these phenomena with the classical narrative. Moreover, Muslim scholars went beyond just criticizing these errors and made many novel contributions to exact sciences. In the process, they realized the proper place of mathematics in the natural sciences. Saliba also comments that Muslim scientists continued to make original contributions to astronomy and other mathematical sciences long after Ghazali, when the classical narrative would preach the death of Islamic science.

In chapter four, Saliba gives examples of critical innovations by Muslim astronomers. He remarks that the interest of the Islamic society in astronomy was very strong due to many religious requirements that need to be answered by astronomy, such as visibility of the moon, daily prayer times, and qibla (direction of worship) etc. Such problems were not considered by Greeks before. Muslim astronomers could not ignore absurdities in Ptolemaic astronomy where mathematical models in Almagest violated the fundamental cosmological assumptions in Planetary Hypotheses. Although Ptolemy’s mathematical models usually made good predictions computationally, it was not satisfactory for the scientists in the new civilization to allow those models to violate the physical properties of the celestial bodies. They took it upon themselves to propose alternative mathematical models that satisfied both requirements. They were highly successful in that quest. The solution of this problem required some new mathematical theorems. Two of the most important of such theorems were Urdi’s Lemma and Tusi couple invented by Urdi and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi in the thirteenth century. Both of these were fecund and fundamental theorems that were used repeatedly by many astronomers who followed them for a long time. Renaissance astronomer Copernicus was among those who made use of these theorems. Also noted in this chapter is Shams al-Din al-Khafri’s understanding of the role of mathematics in describing the physical phenomena.

The title of chapter five is “Science between Philosophy and Religion: the Case of Astronomy,” wherein Saliba considers the relationship between the religion of Islam and scientific developments in astronomy. He explains that religious motivations led to the creation of new disciplines such as ilm al-hay’a (science of configuration) and advances in trigonometry. He states that astronomy and trigonometry are the best examples which demonstrate the intersecting interest between the practice of a religion and scientific thinking that need to be developed as a result of that practice. Many important scientists in medieval Islam were at the same time religious authorities. A few examples among such scholars are Ibn al-Nafis, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi and Ibn al-Shatir. Saliba also notes that the European paradigm of conflict between science and religion does not exist in the Islamic world.

“Islamic Science and Renaissance Europe: The Copernican Connections” is the title of chapter six. Researchers in the second half of twentieth century first realized that many of the astronomical models of Copernicus were identical to that of Ibn al-Shatir from three centuries earlier. This surprising discovery, which contradicted the view that Renaissance science was a European self-contained creation, opened the door for further investigations which revealed more surprising outcomes. The mathematical theorem called the Tusi couple that is mentioned above plays an important role in Copernicus’s model. Copernicus stated the theorem and proved it in 1543 without mentioning that he invented a new theorem or saw it in any other source. The theorem was first invented and proved by Tusi in the middle of the thirteenth century. By comparing the two proofs, W. Hartner noticed in 1973 that Copernicus’s proof was identical to Tusi’s. He even used the same letters for essential geometric points. That is where Tusi used the Arabic letters “alif,” “ba” etc. Copernicus used the corresponding Latin letters “A,” “B” etc. This discovery makes it pretty certain that Copernicus knew about Tusi’s work.

Saliba shows Copernicus’s case is not an isolated instance and gives more evidence in this chapter of the phenomenon that “there are much too many coincidences of ideas appearing first in Arabic texts usually written between the 12th and 15th centuries, which reappear, without much explanation, in Latin sources of the 16th and 17th centuries.” Saliba’s explanation of this phenomenon is that by the Renaissance time men of science themselves learned Arabic and no longer needed translations. There are many examples that show European reliance on Arabic sciences in the post-Copernicus period when the whole worldview was supposed to have been changed by him. Renaissance men of science had a high regard for the Islamic sciences and were looking to the Islamic world for the latest in scientific activities rather than the classical Greek sources.

In the last chapter Saliba discusses the age of decline in Islamic science. He starts by rejecting the two main reasons proposed by the advocates of the classical narrative and argues that it did not start after Ghazali (eleventh century) or the destruction of Baghdad by Mongols in 1258. Saliba says that those who believe the first reason look at the Islamic civilization as a source of religious thought only and operate under the assumption that the European paradigm of conflict between religion and science applies to Islamic world as well. Saliba argues that this assumption is not true for the Islamic world and that scientific activities did not decline after Ghazali. Those who think the main reason was the destruction of Baghdad by Mongols saw the Islamic civilization mostly in political terms and paid little attention to its intellectual history. Saliba gives many examples of high quality and sophisticated scientific production in the Islamic world, mostly in astronomy but in other areas as well, well after both of these events. He says those examples were ignored or not properly read by the adherents of the classical view who did not expect to find any important scientific production in the Islamic world after the thirteenth century.

There still remains the problem and timing of decline of science in the Islamic world. When did it happen? Saliba notes that decline is a relative concept. What actually happened was the European science advanced more rapidly than the rest of the world after the sixteenth century. Hence it looked like science declined elsewhere, including the Islamic world. According to Saliba the main reason for these rapid developments in science in Europe was related to the discovery of the “new world.” He argues that the wealth and resources obtained by Europeans as a result of discovery of new lands helped them fund scientific activities. Europe witnessed the rise of royal and scientific academies where most educated men of the time were assembled and engaged in scientific research without having to worry about financial needs. Healthy competition among these institutions led to new scientific discoveries. Western superiority in science continues to this day and the constant brain drain that feeds the West at the expense of the developing and third worlds does not help to change the balance.

In summary, this book presents fundamental challenges to many of the commonly held views about the intellectual and scientific history of the Islamic world and proposes alternative explanations. The science of astronomy is used as a template to test and justify these claims. The author invites researchers to subject his proposals to the test of historical data in other disciplines as well. This book is highly recommended to all interested in the general history of science, and that of the Islamic world and the Renaissance period in particular.

Nuh Aydin is an associate professor of Mathematics at Kenyon College, Ohio, USA.

Around 4–5 billion years ago (bya) my formation began from the remaining matter after the creation of the sun. In time, this matter accumulated and formed the small planetary objects (planetesimals) which were the earlier forms of future’s giant planets. Our collisions continued with the planetesimals that orbited the sun. As a result of these continuous collisions and bombardments, my surface temperature raised to almost 6,000oC. What I am trying to say is that I was an enormous globe consisting mainly of metallic substances that were melted in boiling lava and showered by thousands of meteoroids and comets. God the Creator has hidden many messages of mystery regarding the entire process I endeavored for humans to discover.

When I began to cool down, my surface hardened like a shell, and because I was not yet sufficiently protected by the gaseous shield known to us today as the atmosphere, my shell was destroyed by the ceaseless continuation of the meteoroid bombardment as soon as it began to form. This transformation continued for billions of years. At last when the invasion of the meteoroids began to ease, I started to mature and slowly began the process of cooling down.

4.4 billion years ago

The creation of pieces of land that looked somewhat different than the seven continents at the present began. They were just sections of land floating on my coat of crust. The formation of crust around my surface was subjected to rupture due to the high pressure caused by the intense heat deep down inside me. Over a period of time this crust, which separated into a number of huge fragments (plates), experienced various deformations that resulted in the formation of mountains. This is how the basins of the ocean and the contours of the continents began to emerge. This was the period during which new specimens of rock (granite) and the floor of the ocean (basaltic), consisting of rising magma, formed the core of the continents. Today scientists are studying the oldest granites (billions of years old) that have managed to survive natural disasters and destruction to discover how the first continents were actually formed.

Granite is the rock that forms the cores of the continents (cratons). Cratons are produced by the primary component of the oldest crust. Cratons are light enough to float on my coat of crust; they are a system created in a way that enables the development of continents. These cratons are found especially in central parts of Africa and also in South America, Australia, North America, and Scandinavia.

My surface is made up of integrated fragments called tectonic plates. Even though my crust was created by rock, it was created flexible enough to allow the plates to move a few centimeters every year caused by the intense heat from beneath my surface.

Continents

Ground movement and various changes have occurred over time due to the dynamic structure of the continents and plates attached to the mantle. Discoveries of exactly the same fossils and identical fresh water organisms in two completely different continents far from each other have proved this. The actual reason for the plate’s activity is that my core is much higher in temperature than my surface. The core deep inside me is around 5,500oC. The greater portion of this intense heat occurred in my early days as a result of the collisions and bombardments I faced, and the remaining is related to the disintegration of the radioactive elements which settled particularly in my mantle section. The heat waves which spread from my core were passed on to the next layer of the mantle. The heat melted a section of my mantle layer and magma forced my molten rocks to the surface. The molten rock, which fills the spaces between the cracked plates, enables new rock to develop, and then the plates separate from one another.

Around the same period of the formation of new rocks, my plates and the continents found on them separated. The formation of rocks deep within ocean continues the creation of the range of volcanic mountains even today. The range of under-water mountains continues for about 12,000 miles between the Antarctic and the North Pole and rises above sea level in some places.

The region called Iceland between the North American and Eurasian plates was formed as a result of an enormous volcanic eruption. This is one of the few places where the separation of the continents is clearly visible. The crevasse of Iceland, surrounded by the American plates on one side and the other European plates on the other, is around 3 miles in width. This crevasse is increasing with the formation of new rocks and is expanding the distance between America and Europe. Scientists say that the distance between the continents is increasing by around 1 inch every year, so within a hundred years the distance between America and Europe is expected to increase another 8 feet.

3.4 billion years ago

The main continents were forced together by movement of the tectonic plates forming new continents, and there are still remaining pieces of these continents inside the cratons of Australia and Africa.

2.7 billion years ago

My first super continent is still the ruling territory. But due to the power built up by heat emerging from my core, the tectonic plates are on the verge of separating this continent. Because of the heat from my core, the main land has separated and oceans were formed in my surface. Today these oceans do not exist on my surface anymore; but you can still find their pieces in the continents by a careful look.

1.1 billion years ago

The supercontinent called Rodinia, a continent which contains most of the earth’s landmass, was created. Seven hundred and fifty million years ago (mya), the heat from my core began to break down this supercontinent, and as a result Rodinia was destroyed and a new supercontinent called Pangaea, the origin of all the continents known in the present day, was created.

Two hundred million years later (or five hundred and sixty-five mya): I became acquainted with bacteria, funguses, poriferans (sponges), earthworms, mollusks, segmented worms, and arthropods.

During the time when these creatures lived on me, the climate was moderate. Major volcanic activities occurred during this period when most of the land was covered by shallow seas. The sudden outbreak of the thousands of species of living creatures during this period may seem amazing to you; in fact, this was actually the first period in which complex structural vertebrates were created.

495–435 million years ago

I first became associated with the red and green sea algae. This was also the period in which various fish and sea creatures were created. The enormous landmass of this period called Pangaea gave me a totally different appearance and had a huge impact on the climate. The reason for this was that a large section of the land was so distant from the sea. The climate of the inland regions was showing deep scale signs of change with every season-certain periods of the year were very hot and others considerably cold. During this time, the ocean did not have the effect on the climate like it does today. This is why the climates varied to such an extent. The change of climate played a huge role in the extinction of many species of that period and destroyed almost 90% of the living creatures.

Creation has continued at a distinct magnitude during the millions of years that have passed, and between 270–340 mya larger proportioned variations of vegetation were created. In a short space of time, this vegetation formed into giant trees that covered huge areas of land. The largest deposits of coal were created from the fossilization of these trees, an example of creation that would make your life a little easier in the years to follow.

On the other hand, the territories began to gather together close to the planes of the equator, and this vast land was covered with rain forests resembling the Amazon. These immense lands of greenery were the marshy forests that were home to extinct ferns and the first seeds of the various groups of plant life. The inhabitants of this intense vegetation were mainly insects, centipedes, and scorpions, but much larger than the ones we know today. The plants and forests disappeared suddenly at the end of this period, and towards the end of the same period when the vast lands of Pangaea began to take form, the glaciers expanded, the sea water receded, and the arid climate changed dramatically along with the forestry structure and vegetation. Then the creation of many new creatures occurred.

250 million years ago

The supercontinent Pangaea began to break up, and this separation caused the formation of Gondwana in the northern hemisphere and Eurasia in the south. Throughout the millions of years, South America began to recede from Africa while North America receded from Europe, resulting in the formation of the continents as we know them today. Australia drifted from the Antarctic continent and moved slowly towards more moderate climates. The evolution of the continents continued to form the huge canyons and valleys in America, and the vast range of mountains, including the Himalayas and the Alps. Between 225–190 mya mammals were created, and between 190–135 mya, birds and alga were created, followed in the next period by plantation seeds which almost completed my preparation as a suitable place for you all to live.

100 million years ago

The plan of the present day continents became apparent. Sometimes my land masses would collide in the regions where the plates joined and caused activity like the formation of the mountains. Without this plate movement, there would have been no mountains created on the planet. During this period, the various species of dinosaurs and reptiles became extinct for reasons unknown to humans. Throughout the following 100 million years, the creation of the most significant mountain ranges, like the Himalayas, occurred along with the continuing collisions of the continents. These plates continue to move 5–10 cm every year and still cause collisions today.

Today I am the proud owner of seven continents. Africa-Eurasia is an enormous supercontinent which houses Africa, Europe, and Asia. Beginning from the plateau of Siberia in Russia, it reaches as far as Africa, but Africa-Eurasia is not my only supercontinent. North and South America joined by Panama also have vast territories. If the Bering Strait that separates Russia and Alaska were to freeze, a person who set out from South America could walk as far as South Africa covering a total distance of 25,000 miles.

Although you are may not realize it, the activity of the continents continues today, and my existence that began billions of years ago will continue in the future until the time comes for me to die (you call this doomsday).

There is another aspect of the continental activity that affects you. This occurs in the form of disasters, for instance the earthquake, an event of nature which has occurred for millions of years. This activity of creation occurs as a result of the intersection of the plates, the collision of continents, or the ocean plates submerging beneath the continent. The tsunami disaster in Indonesia in 2004 was the result of a catastrophic movement of these plates.

The exceptionally lengthy process of my creation explains the transformations and progress I have experienced until I reached the condition suitable for the most precious and honorable of all creation: human beings. I hope that every moment and every aspect of the manifestation of science, wisdom, power, and willpower of my life story and creation will be a guide for you in the future and will encourage you to be even more curious about my end and to bow to our Almighty creator in respect of all He created.

The rule of Muslims represents a particular period in Spanish history. It was at this time that a substantial part of Spain, known back then as Al-Andalus, came under the control of various Islamic groups. The entire period of Islamic rule lasted from the first conquest in 711 to 1492 when the Christian King Ferdinand reconquered Granada (La Reconquista), thereby extinguishing the rule of Muslims (Crow 1985, p.78).

The Umayyad prince, Abd-ar-Rahman I, established himself as Emir of Cordoba in 756, after the Abbasids supplanted Umayyad rule in Syria (Fletcher 2000, p.64). The Umayyad dynasty first ruled as emirs (756–929), then as caliphs (929–1031), but eventually fell to the invading Berber tribes of North Africa, the Almoravids (1090–1147) and then the Almohads (1147–1248) (Fletcher 2000, p.64). The Muslims of Spain ushered in a period of great creativity and scholarship, in which significant advances in poetry, art, music, calligraphy, botany, historiography, medicine, mathematics, and astronomy were made (Fletcher 2000, p. 65).

Maria Rosa Menocal argues that Al-Andalus was a peaceful society in which Jewish people were free to practice their religion without being subject to the threat of forced conversion or persecution. She further claims that the rulers of Al-Andalus not only gave the Jews the right to maintain their religious identity, they also offered them the opportunity to fully involve themselves in what was then a predominantly Muslim society. Al-Andalus is, therefore, a truly unique example of religious toleration and cultural interaction, one which stands above all others in Medieval Europe.

Menocal claims that the Jews of Spain, that is the Sephardic Jews, enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy as they were considered to be people of a particular status. They were members of the Dhimmi, or “pact,” whereby the Muslim rulers agree to protect and care for non-Muslims insofar as they accede to the laws and regulations of the state (Menocal 2002, p.29). Jews, like Christians, are particularly important to this contract as they are “People of the Book” (Ahl al-Kitâb), the book being the Torah or the Bible, both of which are considered to have been revealed by God in Islam (Lassner 1999, p.106). As monotheistic religions of the Abrahamic tradition, Islam, Judaism and Christianity share common ground.That Spanish Jews were treated with respect by their Islamic rulers is evidenced by the way in which they were permitted to be directly involved in the political process. Menocal refers to several Jewish people who rose to claim positions in the Umayyad dynasty, one such person being Hasdai Ibn Shaprut.

Shaprut served as vizier to Caliph Abd-ar-Rahman III (911–961), while also acting as the “prince” or nasi of his own religious community (Menocal 2002, p.79). Shaprut, through his skill and intellect, was able to secure a position of considerable influence and prestige, while retaining his role as a representative of the Jewish community. He served the Umayyad rulers in a variety of ways, including several stints as a foreign ambassador and general secretary (Glick 1979, p.172). Menocal claims that this was not an unusual occurrence or isolated event as Al-Andalus was in fact a “world brightly lit for Jews,” in which they were free to participate in the politics of the state (Menocal 2002, p. 84).

Samuel Ibn Naghrela (Samuel the Nagid, or “prince”) also showed how a Jewish person was able to enjoy a position of power under Islamic rule. Born in 993, he pursued success in a number of fields including as a high-ranking official, poet, statesman and warrior. At thirty-four he was chosen as the first Nagid, or head of the Jewish community, and was later appointed as a vizier and prime minister of Granada (Menocal 2002, p. 104). Jewish people also served as viziers in Zaragoza, Seville, and Almeria during the Muslim rule (Perez 1993, p.10). They were also very active in the economy of Al-Andalus as they had “virtually unlimited opportunities in the booming commercial environment” (Menocal 2002, p. 85). Jewish people were allowed to pursue their vocational interests, and, in time, they came to dominate the financial and mercantile activity of the region (Glick 1979, p. 176).

Menocal attributes the success of the Jewish people in Islamic Spain to their willingness to assimilate, or be “Arabized.” Arabization is the process whereby the Jewish people of Spain sought to understand and to engage with Arabic culture-its language, art, tradition, and values- while still retaining their own sense of identity as a separate community. It is said that the potential for this style of acculturation was great because much of Islamic Spain was highly secular (Glick 1979, p.175). Therefore, the religious affiliation of the individual in Islamic Spain had far less importance, and thus far fewer consequences, than it did elsewhere.

The Jews of Spain excelled in many areas of their society, owing to the tolerance which they had been accorded by their Islamic rulers. They ensured a climate in which Muslims and Jews could live in a state of peaceful cooperation. This happened not by the imposition of one culture on that of another, but a cultural exchange wherein Jews were “able to openly observe and eventually enrich their Judaic and Hebrew heritage and at the same time fully participate in the general cultural and intellectual scene” (Menocal 2002, p. 87). Therefore it can be said that Spain, under the rule of Muslims, was quite tolerant of its Jewish population. The Jews, according to Menocal, did not have “to abandon their orthodoxy to be fully a part of the body politic and culture” (Menocal 2002, p. 86).

Maria Rosa Menocal offers a particular interpretation of this period, one that is certainly not shared by all. Bernard Lewis agrees that the Islamic rulers in Spain treated their Jewish counterparts with some degree of respect (Lewis 1984, p. 9). Lewis refers to the Qur’anic verse (11:62), “Those who believe [the Muslims], and those who profess Judaism, and the Christians and the Sabian, those who believe in God and the Last Day and act righteously, shall have their reward with their Lord,” as the injunction by which Muslims must treat Jews with tolerance (Lewis 1984, p. 13). But Lewis also sees the seeds of hostility and intolerance in the way Muslims treated Jews.

In reality, however, Jews, like Christians, were still defined by their supposed inferiority to that of the Muslim. They were possessors of a religion that was based on authentic revelation, but that incomplete or distorted. They had failed to realize God’s truth in its most perfect form, as it is in Islam.

Bernard Lewis does not limit his perspective to “religious inferiority.” He argues that Muslims restricted Jews’ movement into the wider community. According to him the poll tax, or jizya, a fixed tax that was to be paid by all non-Muslims to the Muslim rulers in return for certain immunities like not going to war, was a “symbolic expression of their (Jews) subordination” to the Muslims (Lewis 1984, p. 14). Restrictions, Lewis argues, were certainly not limited to fiscal servitude, but also applied to the way in which Jewish people conducted themselves in public and private life. A Jewish man could not enter into a marriage with a Muslim woman as that would make a Muslim subordinate to the will of a Dhimmi, though a Muslim man could marry a Jewish woman (Lewis 1984, p. 27).

Generally, the Jewish people were allowed to practice their religion and live according to the laws and scriptures of their community. Furthermore, the restrictions to which they were subject “were social and symbolic rather than tangible and practical in character” (Lewis 1984, p. 26). That is to say, these regulations served to define the relationship between the two communities, and not to oppress the Jewish population.

Norman Roth claims, much like Menocal, that the Jewish population was quite prominent in Spain during the Muslim rule. According to Roth, rarely did “Jews reach such prominent positions of power as they did in Al-Andalus” (Roth 1994, p. 79). This was due, in part, to the fact that they were perceived by the Muslims and Christians of Spain as being “neutral,” that is, without allegiance to either side (Roth 1994, p.79).

While Al-Andalus was a society in which Jews enjoyed a certain degree of freedom, particularly after the advent of the Almohads, Roth claims, some restrictions in clothing were strictly enforced (Roth 1994, p. 167). For instance, the Almohad ruler Abu Yusuf Yaqub (1184–99) made it compulsory for Jews to dress in certain colors (Roth 1994, p. 167), perhaps to distinguish non-Muslim citizens from the Muslims. According to Joseph Perez, the Almohads also instituted religious persecution and forced Jews to convert (Perez 1993, p. 12). In this way, Perez draws a parallel with this period and the one that was to follow, in which Jews were expelled from the newly reclaimed Christian Kingdom of Spain.

The rule of the Moors is a unique period of Spanish history, one that has received much attention from scholars and theologians alike. It was, according to Maria Rosa Menocal, a time in which Jews and Muslims lived a relatively peaceful existence. While the evidence suggests that Jews and Muslims did integrate to an extent, there are also some scholars who suggest that Jews were subject to persecution. Therefore, this period of history offers a lot to be learned for our modern times.

References

• Crow J, 1985, Spain: The Root and the Flower: an interpretation of Spain and the Spanish people, University of California Press, Berkley.
• Fletcher R, 2000, “Islamic Spain,” in Carr R, Spain: A History, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Glick T, 1979, Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
• Lassner J, 1999, “Abraham Geiger: A Nineteenth-Century Jewish Reformer on the Origins of Islam,” in Martin Kramer, The Jewish Discovery of Islam, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
• Lewis B, 1984, The Jews of Islam, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
• Menocal MR, 2002, Ornament of the World, Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
• Perez, J, 1993, History of a Tragedy, University of Illinois Press, Chicago.
• Ray, J, 2006, The Sephardic Frontier: the Reconquista and the Jewish community in Medieval Iberia, Cornell University Press, New York.
• Roth N, 1994, Jews, Visigoths, and Muslims In Medieval Spain: Cooperation and Conflict, Leiden, New York.

As one of Turkish national arts, ebru is carried out by transferring onto special paper a design which is formed by scattering dye on dense water. It is argued that the root of the word “ebru” is from “ebr” (cloud-like), “ab-rû” (water surface) in Persian, or “ebre” (moiréd) in Chagatai. Owing to its moiréd appearance, it is called “marmor papier,” “papier marbre,” or “marbled paper” in European languages, and “waraqu’l-mujazza” in Arabic.

The art of Ebru, which is believed to have origins in Bukhara (a city in Uzbekistan, Central Asia) in the eighth or ninth century, reached Anatolia and Istanbul via Iran along the Great Silk Road. Ebru, like other book arts, continued to develop in Istanbul, reached maturity in the sixteenth century, and experienced its brightest period of time in the seventeenth century. The Ebru that was produced in that period in Istanbul was enough to meet the demand from Europeans.

The oldest example of Ebru ever known is in Istanbul University Library. It is estimated that it was made before 1519. Another piece of Ebru, which is believed to have been made in 1539, is kept in Topkapý Palace, in Istanbul. It is impossible to know much about early Ebru artists, (except those from the last period of the Ottomans) because there was no tradition of adding the artist’s signature to the work in that period. sebek Mehmet Efendi, Hatip Mehmet Efendi, seyh Sadýk Efendi, Nafiz Efendi and Hezarfen Ethem Efendi were famous Ebru artists who lived in the Ottoman period. Names such as Necmettin Okyay, Sami Okyay, Sacit Okyay, Abdülkadir Kadri Efendi and Mustafa Düzgünman were famous Ebru artists who lived in the early Republican period. Today, in Turkey, where the art of Ebru is becoming even more popular, there are a lot of contemporary Ebru artists.

Early Ebru artists produced almost all the equipment that they used. The materials which are used are paper, kitre (a gum-like substance made of cow’s gall), a table, naphtha, an awl set, combs, dyes, and brushes. The dye that is used in Ebru is water-proof. In traditional Ebru, soil pigments are used. The pigments are crushed on a marble base with a hand-carved stone called a “destezeng.” They are then put in a bowl, and mixed with water and gall. The mixture is left to stand for some time so that it reaches the right consistency. The period of waiting may be from several weeks to several years according to the type and quality of the dye. Owing to the difficulty of its preparation, this technique has almost been completely replaced with using readymade products.

Ebru is categorized according to the design and the motif used. By manipulating the dye on the surface of the water, different styles of Ebru can be made such as “the tide,” “the shawl,” “the striped,” “bülbülyuvasý,” (drawing spirals from outside to inside) “Hatip,” (drawing concentric circles with drops of colors) and “flowery.” Battal Ebru is made without manipulating the dye and transferred to the paper directly.

To judge the beauty of a piece of Ebru, three points should be taken into consideration. These are hav (the nap), the nimbus (hale), and the design. The nap is the height of the dye on the surface of the water. It feels velvet-like when it is touched with the fingers. The best nap can only be obtained with a soil dye. The nimbus is a white, glimmering circle around every drop of dye. It is achieved with the gall which is added to the dye. The design is the general appearance of the Ebru. It is composed of color distribution, coherence, form, and the location and size of motifs.

In the contemporary world, different schools of Ebru can be distinguished. The Turkish art of Ebru is one of these styles or schools. Hundreds of Ebru artists perform Ebru in their own way.

Today, most Ebru artists practice it as an independent art. In addition, Ebru is also used with miniature, calligraphy, tezhip, and other arts such as painting. The production of Ebru for book binding has declined in recent years.

There are different arguments about the relation between traditional and modern Ebru. While some artists are more sensitive about carrying on the traditional school, others are freer about the use of equipment and technique. It is useless to argue on which is better. There are already hundreds of Ebru artists around the world who deal with Ebru in the way they want. Whether the work is admired or not depends on art lovers. It is probable that a technique or a school which does not attract any attention today will be demanded more in the future.

There are too few Ebru artists who have received education and license to teach from the early masters. For that reason, the condition that every Ebru teacher should have a teaching license may restrict the art and artists. It can be understood whether one is really an Ebru artist or not, through one’s works, not just by looking at a person’s certificate. On the other hand, it would be beneficial if expert trainers could come together and determine some criteria.

The art of Ebru in today’s world has been experiencing a period of revival. Both in Turkey and in the rest of the world, there is increasing interest in Ebru. In tandem with the fact that many Ebru artists have been trained, there have arisen new techniques and schools.

In his studies, (1993, 1996) Huntington suggests alternative explanations to understanding conflicts and disputes in the post-Cold War period. To him, “culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are civilizational identities, are shaping patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War” (Huntington 1996, 20).

The purpose of this paper is to test Huntington’s argument (1996) by addressing the following question: “Does a civilizational difference cause militarized interstate dispute?” The significance of the answer to this question is obvious: if Huntington’s claim is empirically supported, then dominant theories of international politics, which do not base conflicts on civilizational differences, have to be revised. And, therefore, Huntington’s theory will be useful in understanding the emerging world-order and explaining militarized disputes and conflicts that have occurred in the post-Cold War era.

Literature review

There were many responses and objections to Huntington’s argument that resulted in an extensive debate. Many of them claimed that the civilization theory is unable to explain the causes of conflicts and international order. In spite of the great number of responses and studies, few of these have been supported by quantitative research.

One of the important studies that evaluated Huntington’s argument and which deserves close attention was conducted by Russett, Oneal, and Cox in 2000 (in Triangulating Peace 2001, 239-305). The main question to be answered was “Does a difference in civilization increase the likelihood that a pair of states will become involved in a militarized interstate dispute?” (Russett et al 2001, 248). To perform their study, they used the University of Michigan’s Correlates of War (COW) database that provided Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID). In their view, limiting their analysis to MID that occurred during the 1950-92 period was appropriate, because “Huntington addressed events in these years when he first presented his argument in 1993” (249). Variables of liberal and realist theories were also added to their analysis in order to observe which theory had had higher explanatory and predictive power. Results of logistic regression indicated that variables of liberal and realist theories had much more influence on the probability of conflict than on civilization theory. Belonging to different civilizations increases the risk of dispute between two states only by 12 percent with .30 level of statistical significance. (255).

Huntington (2000, 609) replied to Russett et al, suggesting that they retest their argument as it was dealing with the post-Cold War period. Russett et al (2000, 611), in turn, argued that Huntington (1993) had used many disputes and conflicts that had not occurred in the post-Cold War era to justify and support his argument. That was the reason why they used MID of the 1950-92 period.

Another study to test Huntington’s argument was conducted by Jonathan Fox in 2001. He tried to examine whether conflicts between civilizations, particularly Western and Islamic conflicts, had increased with the end of the Cold War (Fox 2001, 459). He used the Minorities at Risk (MAR) dataset for his quantitative research and came up with interesting results. From a global perspective, the ratio of non-civilizational conflicts to civilizational conflicts had not changed significantly after the end of the Cold War. From an Islamic civilization perspective, there had been little change in the amount of conflicts among Islamic and other civilizations. However, from the perspective of Western civilizations, the proportion of conflicts between Western and Islamic civilizations had significantly increased since the end of the Cold War. Fox concludes that the findings illustrate that it is important which perspective one looks at conflicts from. If one looks from the Western perspective, they will find an increased amount of conflicts between Western and Islamic civilizations, which supports Huntington’s argument. But from the global and Islamic civilization perspective, little evidence can be found for a “clash of civilizations” in the post-Cold War period (459).

Although Fox’s study deserves attention, it does not examine conflicts among the other seven civilizations, but only focuses on the Western versus Islamic civilizations. Furthermore, his units of analysis are conflicts within states, not interstate. Interstate disputes are important in analyzing Huntington’s argument, because a nation as a whole has specific civilizational characteristics. According to Huntington’s map (1996, 26-27) of civilizations, each nation belongs to one of the nine civilizations and conflicts mostly arise among these. Conflicts that occur within states are only one minor part of Huntington’s argument.

Many other scholars have qualitatively criticized Huntington’s clash of civilizations theory. Ali Mazrui (1997) finds three major problems in Huntington’s argument. First, there is a “factual fallacy.” “It may not be factually true that the main lines of conflict of the future, following the Cold War, will be lines of clash of civilizations. It could be states or economic blocs” (Mazrui in Rashid 97, 27). Second, there could also be a “conceptual fallacy” in Huntington’s argument. Mazrui suggests a “clash of races” as an alternative to the clash of civilizations (27). Thirdly, there is a “temporal fallacy,” which means that inter-civilizational conflicts are not phenomena of the emerging world, but rather that they have been the most important issue of the world for at least the past four to five hundred years; within these conflicts we can include the Crusades, the “trans-Atlantic slave-trade, and European colonization of much of the world” (29).

In response to his critics (Foreign Affairs 1996, 67), Huntington stated that none of these scholars had come up with a better alternative to explain the conflicts of the new era. To him, the clash of civilizations remains the most powerful theory to understand disputes in the post-Cold War period.

In this context, this paper is of a crucial importance because 1) it will focus on militarized disputes of the post-Cold War period; 2) the disputes are among the states and civilizations they belong to; 3) and the study will conduct a quantitative method to analyze the clash of civilizations. Thus, this paper takes into account the weaknesses of previous studies and establishes a strong critique to Huntington’s argument.

Research design

This analysis uses the Correlates of War (COW) project’s Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID). The COW provides MID starting from 1816 to 2001. As Huntington (2000, 609) claims, the clash of civilizations theory is helpful in understanding conflicts that occurred after the end of the Cold War, specifically after 1989 (Huntington 1996, 21; Huntington 2000, 609). The COW project had MID reaching up to 2001, so I chose those MID which occurred from 1989 to 2001. Although the number of disputes in this period seems to be small to test any theory, it should be quite enough to evaluate Huntington’s argument, as post-Cold War disputes were the basis of his theory. I had 620 militarized interstate disputes in total. Each dispute occurred between at least two states; one state in side A, and another on side B. The sides are coded as 0 and 1. I had information on which pair of states had disputes. Some disputes had more than two sides. I rearranged these coalitions as if they had disputes separately as dyads. For instance, if there were two states on side A and two states on side B in a dispute, than there would be four dyads involved in the same dispute.

States in these disputes belong to one of the nine civilizations, which are Western, coded as 1, Latin American (2), African (3), Islamic (4), Sinic (5), Hindu (6), Orthodox (7), Buddhist (8), and Japanese (9). Huntington (1993, 1996) does not explicitly specify the number of civilizations. In his article (1993) he mentions about “seven or eight major civilizations.” To him, Buddhism “has not been the basis of a major civilization.” (Huntington 1996, 48). Also Japan has not founded any civilization as there are no nations that share the same religion, language, or cultural values with Japanese culture. However, map 1.3 (The World of Civilizations: Post-1990) in his book (1996, 26-27) shows that there are nine civilizations in the world, including Buddhist and Japanese. I used nine civilizations as shown in the map. Russett et al (2001, 251) used eight, excluding Japanese. I wonder how they dealt with disputes that had Japan on one of the sides.

Having nine coded civilizations and many more states in the dataset, I coded all states as any of the nine civilizations they belonged to, according to map 1.3. (Huntington 1996, 26-27). I had difficulties, as did Russett et al (2001, 251), in classifying some states, because the map was not clear and Huntington did not explicitly mention them in the text. For example Nigeria, according to the map is separated into two civilizations, Islamic and African. Since religion is the most important factor that distinguishes each civilization, I have used the CIA’s World Factbook to find out the proportion of religion in Nigeria, and classified it as Islamic. India is shown as a state of both Islamic and Hindu civilizations, but I have classified it as Hindu. Sri Lanka was classified as Buddhist in relevance with Russett et al (2001). The Philippines, in my classification, go into Sinic civilization, but Russett et al (2001) classify it as Western. The most interesting problem that occurred in classification was to which civilization Israel belongs. The question is significant, as Israel has had many disputes with its neighboring states. Huntington thinks Israel is an Islamic civilization according to the map. It is ironic that Israel is considered as an Islamic civilization, first because it has nothing to do with the religion of Islam, and second because such an approach decreases empirical support for Huntington’s argument. Although it does not make sense, I classified Israel as Islamic, strictly adhering to the map.

To answer my research question I had to use civilization dyads and observe if these dyads are prone to clash or not and how frequently they have disputes. Thus, I arranged these nine civilizations in dyadic form and came up with 45 civilization dyads, extracting each one of the same dyads as 1,2 v. 2,1. A dyad is labeled 0 if the civilizations in it are the same and 1 if the civilizations are different. After arranging civilization dyads, I plugged each dispute into one of the dyads and totaled it in regard to the 45 civilization dyads. Then I arranged the number of disputes in each dyad according to the proportion to the total number of disputes.

Huntington’s main hypothesis is that civilizations have mattered and have had positive impact on disputes in the post-Cold War period. I have my doubts about his argument and hypothesize that civilizations do not matter in interstate.

Data analysis

After running my Probit model, I have found that difference in civilizations had negative impact on interstate disputes with relatively small statistical significance (10). The findings of this paper contradict what Huntington (1993, 1996) suggests as his explanation for the causes of interstate disputes in the post-Cold War era. In other words, civilization differences do not cause interstate conflicts.

There have been a total of 620 militarized interstate disputes during the 1989-2001 period, according to the COW dataset (see Table 1). Some of civilization dyads did not have any disputes, whereas other dyads conflicted several times. Huntington’s argument that different civilizations clash does not find support with the results of this study. We can see from Table 1 that 19 dyads that consist of different civilizations have not had any militarized dispute since the end the Cold War. How can Huntington explain this phenomenon on the basis of his clash of civilizations argument? Can interstate disputes be explained by civilizational differences? The answers to these questions are obviously negative. Different variables of realist and liberal theories may explain the findings, but that is not within the scope of this study.

Limitations

One of the important limitations is the absence of a clear list of civilizations and states in these civilizations. If Huntington had provided these data then there would be no dissimilarities among the scholars who tried to test his argument. Some studies used eight civilizations while others used nine. Some states, like Israel and the Philippines were placed in different civilizations in different studies. This may influence the results of these studies, as these states have had many militarized disputes.

Conclusion

This study shows that Huntington’s argument is insufficient to explain conflicts in the new world order. As he argues, “culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are civilizational identities, are shaping patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War” (Huntington 1996, 20). However, he did not carry out a quantitative analysis of the argument. He provided only case studies and offered qualitative analysis as support. Many studies, including this one, have been conducted in response to his clash of civilizations argument, with the conflicts of the post-Cold War period being analyzed quantitatively. None of these studies has found evidence to support Huntington’s argument. The finding of this study illustrates that a difference in civilization is not sufficient on its own to understand what causes conflicts these days nor does it have a positive impact on militarized disputes.

References

• Foreign Affairs. 1996. Samuel P. Huntington’s the Clash of Civilizations? The Debate. New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
• Fox, Jonathan. 2001. Two Civilizations and Ethnic Conflict: Islam and the West. Journal of Peace Research 38(4): 459-472.
• Huntington, Samuel P. 1993. The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs 72(3): 22-49
• If Not Civilizations, What? Foreign Affairs 72(4): 186-94, 1993.
• The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1996.
• Try Again: A Reply to Russett, Oneal & Cox. Journal of Peace Research 37(5): 609-610, 2000.
• Rashid, Salim. 1997. The Clash of Civilizations? Asian Responses. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Russett, Bruce M. and John R. Oneal. 2000. A Response to Huntington. Journal of Peace Research 37(5): 611-612.
• Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Inter dependence, and International Organizations. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.

The problem of pulmonary tuberculosis in pregnancy has attracted the attention of doctors for many years and it is still a current issue. Modern researchers and physicians divide tuberculosis into several independent problems which have difficult solutions. On the one hand, there is the influence of tuberculosis on the course of pregnancy and child delivery as well as on the health of a mother and her child. On the other hand, there is the influence of pregnancy and childbirth, the puerperal period and lactation on the course and progress of tuberculosis.

Research on how pregnancy influences the course of tuberculosis has been carried out for many years. Even in the oldest available documents we can find instructions for “personal precautions” and preventative measures against tuberculosis, as well as thoughts about pregnancy and tuberculosis. In 1400 BC the Law of Manu from ancient India prohibited marriages to girls from families with tuberculosis. In different world religions, including Islam and Christianity, there are special restrictions concerning people who suffer from this illness.

In ancient times Hippocrates and Galen taught that pregnancy has a positive influence on the function of lungs. But the Islamic doctors, Arabian as well as Spanish, of the Cordoba Caliphate considered that the blessed process of pregnancy must not be complicated by pulmonary diseases.

With time European medical science changed its point of view. From the second part of the 17th century until the beginning of the 19th century doctors considered that pregnancy had a bad effect on the course of tuberculosis, but then the situation, for some reason, changed. Doctors began to think that pregnancy had a good influence on lung diseases. They even started to advise girls who were susceptible to tuberculosis to marry. Time passed and doctors began to change their opinion on tuberculosis in pregnancy and the extremes in views became less obvious. This happened due to the introduction of an artificial pneumothorax into the treatment of tuberculosis.

Since then the third period in the understanding of the relationship between pregnancy and tuberculosis has begun. The opinion about the course of tuberculosis in pregnant women has changed due to the successful therapy of tuberculosis with the help of the artificial pneumothorax.

During the gestation period, all the organs and tissues of the entire organism experience an increased load, as they are trying to satisfy both their own needs and that of the developing fetus. These morphological and functional changes do not lead to any pathological state in the mother if she is healthy and her course of pregnancy is normal. If the woman’s organism has been weakened by a chronic immunodeficiency due to poor environmental conditions or if she has a tuberculosis process in her organism, then functional changes and tissue dystrophies can develop in her nervous system which will lead to metabolic disorders. Changes in ergasia caused by pregnancy and connected with changes in higher nervous activity, as well as with endocrine reorganization, can influence the development and the course of the tubercular process.

Before penicillin was discovered, pregnancy usually led to the progression of the disease and in many cases even ended fatally. Nowadays due to the use of effective antituberculous medicines the attitude towards possible pregnancy of women who have active tuberculosis has considerably changed.

Tuberculosis in a pregnant woman usually starts in an acute form; at this stage infiltrative forms of the disease with necrogenic and bacterioexcretion prevail, often combined with exudative pleurisy, trachea, larynx and bronchi lesions.

Frequent consecutive pregnancies have a negative effect on the state of women who suffer from tuberculosis; they weaken the organism and can cause the recrudescence of the tuberculosis process. This is very typical of many families in poor Asian and African countries. More than half of all pregnant women suffering from an active form of tuberculosis experience a progressive iron deficiency anemia during the first three months of pregnancy and in the second trimester of pregnancy this can be observed in almost all patients. Malaria is also widespread in Asian and African countries that are situated to the south of Sahara and are the second reason for iron deficiency anemia.

According to modern views, one of the reasons for the recrudescence of the tubercular process during pregnancy is an irregular or non-systematic treatment of this illness or the absence of any treatment at all. The recrudescence of the process observed in those suffering from destructive pulmonary tuberculosis is caused by the severity of the illness itself when new conditions for the organism occur. In this case, pregnancy begins against the background of an advanced chronic immune deficiency. At the same time, due to the feto-placental complex operation, functional changes in the nervous, respiratory, cardiovascular and urinary systems, as well as hormonal changes, in the organism of a pregnant woman take place.

Moreover, the development of the fetal skeleton requires calcium which is absorbed not only via the blood of the mother, but also from the healed niduses of tuberculosis and as a result, the progression of a specific process can appear.

The reactivation of the tubercular process happens due to a decrease in the responsiveness of the organism and because of an increase in the activity of the reproductive hormones and the loosening of the connective tissues which are physiologically involved in pregnancy. The amount of plasma and extra vascular fluid increases. Due to these changes, a swelling and loosening in the inactive tubercular niduses with the mycobacteria of tuberculosis can appear. And loosening, in its turn, enables a lymphohematogenous spread of mycobacteria.

In addition to these, the delivery of a child leads to a speedy reorganization of all the functions of the organism; lactation and nursing in their turn are combined with an increased loss daily of nutritious matters and a large amount of protein and fats. In case of destructive pulmonary tuberculosis, due to the fact that the diaphragm descends (resulting in the abdominal decompression ceasing to have a therapeutic action of pneumoperitoneum) bronchogenic dissemination appears in the unaffected parts of the lungs.

A specific active process can be observed in women belonging to the high-risk group in connection with tuberculosis. The high-risk group combines women who have recently suffered from tuberculosis (less than one year after treatment), those who have just been operated on for a tuberculosis connected illness (less than one year), women with tuberculosis of different localizations younger than 20 years (for Asia and Africa) and those older than 35 years (for Europe and the USA), those with widespread forms of the tubercular process withstanding its stage, women who have had contact with people discharging bacteria or people suffering from tuberculosis but not discharging bacteria, and also those who have coexisting illnesses (diabetes, chronic nonspecific pulmonary illnesses, problems with kidneys, stomach and duodenum ulcer), and also women who use alcohol, narcotics, those who smoke and lead asocial ways of life. In these cases, the women must be properly examined during the gestation period, including X-rays.

Treatment of tuberculosis during pregnancy

All other conditions being equal, the timely detection of active tuberculosis during pregnancy allows doctors to provide a full course of treatment, allowing the woman to recover and give birth to a healthy child. Untreated active tuberculosis of the mother is much more dangerous for the fetus than anti-tuberculosis chemotherapy.

Special attention must be paid to healthy women who are in contact with bacillary patients. Quite often these women might undergo active tuberculosis for the first time during pregnancy or after the delivery itself.

In the pre-penicillin era the recrudescence of the tubercular process during pregnancy and after the delivery proceeded in an acute form with frank infiltrative changes, a necrogenic process, bloody expectoration and very often a generalization of the process. Nowadays, the clinical outlook for complications and the recrudescence of tuberculosis against the background of pregnancy is less gloomy. It more resembles the toxicosis of pregnancy or respiratory diseases.

While examining a patient, special attention must be paid to chest problems like moist or dry coughs, bloody expectoration, pain in the chest and shortness of breath. If the patient coughs with expectoration for 2 weeks then she must be examined for mycobacteria with the usage of a microscopic technique.

Another syndrome, which is also very important, is a complex of intoxication symptoms (weakness, hidrosis, anorexia, weight loss, long-lasting low grade fever and hyperirritability) which need to be detected to discover the reason for their development. While examining the anamnesis of a pregnant woman it is necessary to learn if she has ever suffered from tuberculosis before, if she has had any possible contacts with infected people, whether there are cases of tuberculosis or concomitant diseases in her family as all of these can be very useful for the verification of tuberculosis.

When active pulmonary tuberculosis is suspected an X-ray examination is necessary. When the chest is in frontal projection, the X-ray exposure of the fetus is 10 times lower than that of its mother (with compulsory use of a protective apron). Examination of the cough expectoration for the presence of tubercular mycobacteria is one of the easiest, most effective and informative diagnostic methods.

Chemotherapy, which destroys the tubercle bacillus that spread in the organism, plays a leading role in the variety of methods for tuberculosis treatment. By reducing the population of bacteria, chemotherapy supports the healing process, the dispersion of inflammatory changes, the closing of caverns, the encapsulation of the remaining loci as well as preventing the development of sclerosis. When the patient suffers from tuberculosis, the healing processes are very slow; the first stage of the recovery process of mycobacteria ceases and only after some months, in the case of a successful treatment of tuberculosis, does the healing process finish.

The necessary treatment of pregnant women who suffer from tuberculosis must start as soon as the diagnosis has been made. Chemotherapy implies taking antibacterial medicines (isoniaside, rifampicin, pyrazinamide, ethambutol, ethionamide and etc.) in different combinations. The choice of this or that combination depends on the stage of the disease as well as on any undesirable reactions to the medicines prescribed.

The treatment of tuberculosis (if there are indications) continues during the entire pregnancy and lactation period. In particular, patients with tuberculosis that has been diagnosed during the pregnancy are in need of treatment. When there is a systematic treatment, up to the moment of delivery and in the puerperal period, positive clinicoradiologic dynamics can be observed regarding the specific inflammation (stoppage of bacterioexcretion, closing of caverns, dispersion of loci, infiltration and exudate). Patients who reject treatment during the process of pregnancy suffer from an advancement of the illness.

Transplacental infection of the fetus with tuberculosis almost never occurs, but the baby can be infected from the mother in the puerperal period. There is also a possibility of contamination during delivery, but this is a rare occurrence.. God truly protects the innocent!

Permission to breast feed must be given by a joint resolution of an obstetrician, a pediatrician, and a specialist of tuberculosis taking into account the state of a woman and the form and the stage of the tubercular process. Overall precautionary measures must be taken (a nonbacterial mask of 5-6 layers covering the nose and the mouth, a kerchief covering the head and thoroughly washed hands).

A bacteriological study of the breast milk of women who suffer from tuberculosis shows that typical mycobacteria rarely vegetates (no more than 0.33%). Human milk has the ability to suppress the development of the mycobacteria of tuberculosis. This must be connected with the rich spectrum of ferments, immunoglobulins, cellular elements, macro-phages, the complement system, interferon and other factors of nonspecific protection which human milk contains.

The contraindications for nursing are as follows: tuberculosis of the lactiferous gland, an acute form of tuberculosis, active pulmonary tuberculosis with bacterioexcretion, active tuberculosis of any organs detected at the end of the pregnancy or after the delivery, and recrudescence of tuberculosis during the pregnancy. Children born to such mothers are immediately isolated after their birth and bottle fed, they are vaccinated and stay in the hospital for 6 weeks if possible (the minimum period for compulsory postvaccinal isolation).

Thus the tubercular process in the lungs, especially an active one, will have a negative influence on pregnancy and delivery. Babies born to such mothers belong to a high-risk group as far as the possibility of neonatal pathology and antenatal death of the fetus are regarded. Women with pulmonary tuberculosis must undergo regular consultations with both an obstetrician-gynecologist and a phthisiologist from the very early stages of their pregnancy. They must also receive special treatment until all the signs of active tuberculosis have been eliminated.

At this point, it is important to note that the motives for Muslims to engage in dialogue with non-Muslims have their roots embedded not in the recent past, but date back to the seventh century. Dialogue is not a civilized virtue of modern times, but rather a duty upon every Muslim, who is following the footsteps of the Prophet of Islam. Dialogue is not a temporary activity, but a way of living that spans a lifetime. In the very first days of his mission, the Prophet sought every possible means of communication with his fellow townsmen; despite fierce opposition and in the face of all kinds of dangers and threats, he was the one who took the first step and initiated “dialogue.” This attitude was not only limited to the Mecca period when Muslims were few in number and powerless to defend themselves. The Blessed Prophet sent aid to Mecca when his hometown was suffering a deadly famine; this happened when Muslims had won battles against Meccan pagans and the city state of Islam was laying its foundations more strongly than any other establishment in the Arabian Peninsula. It is also well known that the Prophet’s shield was in the custody of a Jew when he passed away; he never stopped making peaceful contacts with non Muslims.

Some of the articles in this issue focus on some significant concepts like tolerance, jihad, and dialogue between Muslims and Christians. The lead article shows believers how to respond to “. . . the coarsest thoughts and the crudest ideas, without losing our temper.” “Mildness is reminded in such situations we cannot tolerate, a kind of mildness presented in the Qur’an as “gentle words” which “is the result of a tender heart, a gentle approach, and mild behavior.”

Galymzhan Kirbassov analyzes Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory.

Studying interstate disputes during the post-Cold War period, his analysis proposes a qualitative result that conflicts occur more because of other reasons than civilizational differences. Evan Radford’s piece explores the Islamic concept of “jihad” that is highly unpopular in the West. Radford thinks this unpopularity is a result of misinformation; Westerners and some extremists have misinterpreted jihad and use this concept as a veil and as a means to legitimatize their politically motivated violent activities.