The reasons are manifolds. Collapse of Abbasid Caliphs resulted in small kingdoms which were not simply at war with each other but also have to face invading crusaders, even then philosophy and science flourished in Muslim world till early 14th century despite shifting of energy and wealth on this front instead of patronage of scholars. Mongol invaders also destroyed the greatest library of the time at Baghdad that might have become a source of revival of scholarship. However, the grave was dug earlier. Mutlazites instead of learning and propagating physical science placed more emphasis on foreign philosophy which was not in line with simple teachings and philosophy of Islam. Since, they were favourites in the Abbasid court, there emerged several religious misunderstandings and disputes including whether Quraán is creature or word of Allah and problem of destiny which has emerged earlier again became topic of philosophical discussion instead of religious discourses. These started new ideas in Islam and became source of innovations and distortion of imaan. However, ulema told that there was no single human philosophy rather philosophies which could not and should not decide religious matters, if one philosophy approved, the other one disapproved. This led to ulema to despite philosophy and masses followed them. Remember, ulema never disapproved study of physical sciences and none was persecuted though may had been criticised for one's scientific ideas. Another grave SIN (mistake) on the part of ulema and acceptance by general public was unsolicited and unauthorised withdrawal of right of ijtehad from ulema and others. This led to freezing of religious thinking in religious, judicial and administrative matters resulting in societal stagnation. Further, there was imposed a strictly structured Nizamiyah Curriculum in educational system based on Al-Ghazali’s thought. Al-Ghazali also taught in Madarsa Nizamiyah at Baghdad in his later age. This educational Curriculum did not changed for centuries and is still more or less in operation in Madarsa education system in several countries.

Though, centres of learning shifted to non-Arab areas and considerable headway was made, but stagnation in the Muslim society as whole had set in. However, it is somewhat bizarre that the ascension of the West coincided with the decline of two scientifically advanced Eastern civilizations- Islamic and Chinese. Though there are some flimsy detailed attempts to justify fall of Chinese scientific tradition which most people have bought, but there is made little exploration in the case of Islamic civilisation. But almost simultaneous decline of these two grand Eastern traditions with the rise of the Western on is a great historical puzzle.

I would like to ask an additional question to cover my ignorance: after the great medieval thinkers of dar al Islam what were the main directions of Islamic philosophy and who were the main thinkers? I presume there was an independent an autonomus development of this branch of philiosophy which remained pretty much unknown in the West. In the midle ages of Europe when theology was in the forefront, even the western thinkers learned a lot from the interpretation of Aristotle by Islamic (and Jew) thinkers, as did European mathemticians, astrologers, astronomers, phyiscians etc. Later, however, this learning process faded away. This migh have to do with differing interests,

The reasons are manifolds. Collapse of Abbasid Caliphs resulted in small kingdoms which were not simply at war with each other but also have to face invading crusaders, even then philosophy and science flourished in Muslim world till early 14th century despite shifting of energy and wealth on this front instead of patronage of scholars. Mongol invaders also destroyed the greatest library of the time at Baghdad that might have become a source of revival of scholarship. However, the grave was dug earlier. Mutlazites instead of learning and propagating physical science placed more emphasis on foreign philosophy which was not in line with simple teachings and philosophy of Islam. Since, they were favourites in the Abbasid court, there emerged several religious misunderstandings and disputes including whether Quraán is creature or word of Allah and problem of destiny which has emerged earlier again became topic of philosophical discussion instead of religious discourses. These started new ideas in Islam and became source of innovations and distortion of imaan. However, ulema told that there was no single human philosophy rather philosophies which could not and should not decide religious matters, if one philosophy approved, the other one disapproved. This led to ulema to despite philosophy and masses followed them. Remember, ulema never disapproved study of physical sciences and none was persecuted though may had been criticised for one's scientific ideas. Another grave SIN (mistake) on the part of ulema and acceptance by general public was unsolicited and unauthorised withdrawal of right of ijtehad from ulema and others. This led to freezing of religious thinking in religious, judicial and administrative matters resulting in societal stagnation. Further, there was imposed a strictly structured Nizamiyah Curriculum in educational system based on Al-Ghazali’s thought. Al-Ghazali also taught in Madarsa Nizamiyah at Baghdad in his later age. This educational Curriculum did not changed for centuries and is still more or less in operation in Madarsa education system in several countries.

Though, centres of learning shifted to non-Arab areas and considerable headway was made, but stagnation in the Muslim society as whole had set in. However, it is somewhat bizarre that the ascension of the West coincided with the decline of two scientifically advanced Eastern civilizations- Islamic and Chinese. Though there are some flimsy detailed attempts to justify fall of Chinese scientific tradition which most people have bought, but there is made little exploration in the case of Islamic civilisation. But almost simultaneous decline of these two grand Eastern traditions with the rise of the Western on is a great historical puzzle.

"Early Islamic philosophy or classical Islamic philosophy is a period of intense philosophical development beginning in the 2nd century AH of the Islamic calendar (early 9th century CE) and lasting until the 6th century AH (late 12th century CE). The period is known as the Islamic Golden Age, and the achievements of this period had a crucial influence in the development of modern philosophy and science. This period starts with al-Kindi in the 9th century and ends with Averroes (Ibn Rushd) at the end of 12th century. The death of Averroes effectively marks the end of a particular discipline of Islamic philosophy usually called the Peripatetic Arabic School, and philosophical activity declined significantly in Western Islamic countries, namely in Islamic Spain and North Africa, though it persisted for much longer in the Eastern countries, in particular Persia and India where several schools of philosophy continued to flourish: Avicennism, Illuminationist philosophy, Mystical philosophy, and Transcendent theosophy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Islamic_philosophy

No one has a good theory to explain the decline of Islamic science and philosophy.

Oswald Spenger in his "Decline of the West" did provide a great thory (or vison?) on the cyclic ascent and decline of human cultures which I admire. Arnold Toynbee in his 12 volume work (A Study of History) also provided a valuable, but not so strict scheme on the changes of civilizations. For that matter a great Arabic scientist, Ibn Khaldun proposed a cyclic theory as well - much earlier. A good friend mine, Dr. Jeno Szmodis also porposed a scheme for cvilizations (unfortunatey his books are presently available only in Hungarian). He distinguishes stationary and cyclically developing civilizations. In his opinion India and China belong to the first category, while Greece, Rome and the West to the second. (In fact, he considers the arab civilization a kind of intermediate between the extrmes). It is not a value difference - in the long run the stagnating cvilizations prove to be more stable, while the cyclic ones tend to destroy themselves after reaching their climax. This is not an explanation, just food for thought.

Gyorgy

You are right, as the researches of Kroeber and Sorokin have conclusively shown, "many great cultural or social systems or civilizations have many cycles, many social, intellectual, and political ups and downs in their virtually indefinitely long span of life, instead of just one life-cycle, one period of blossoming, and one of decline."

The Muslim civilization rose from early 9th century to the12th century. Then it gradually declined till it received a deadly blow in the form of the Mongol onslaughts.

Second rise was from the last decade of the thirteenth century to the end of the seventeenth century during which period its domain covered three of the biggest empires of the world (Turkish, Persian, and Indian) only to fall again from the beginning of the eighteenth to the middle of the nineteenth century; and there are now signs of a third rise in almost all Muslim lands.

While in the first period its glory lay among other things, in its commercial, industrial, scientific, and philosophical fields, in the second it distinguished itself chiefly in the fields of poetry, painting, secular history, travels, mysticism, and minor arts.

A civilization can see many ups and downs and there is nothing against the possibility of its regeneration. No culture dies completely. Some elements of each die out and others merge as living factors into other cultures.

The philosophy in al-Andalus had its best time with the small kingdoms "Taifas" in the second half of the eleventh century and in the early years of the Almohad Caliphate, in the second half of XII, with authors such as Ibn-Rushd, the best continuator of Ibn-Sina. Thanks to them the main developments of Arabic science passed to the West, while rigorism of almohad ulama and qadis forced to be exiled to the best intellectuals (as Ibn-Rushd himself, whose works were burned in 1195). There are several excellent books of Juan Vernet on this issue (I don’t know if there are english translations): “Lo que Europa debe al Islam de España” (Barcelona, El Acantilado 1999) and “La Ciencia en al-Andalus” (Seville, Publicaciones Andaluzas Unidas, 1986).

The rise of Islam and Arabic math is known ... http://planetmath.org/arabicnumerals ... the reasons for the decline are not as well documented.

Why did Arabs stop using Egyptian fractions? The reasons are partly disclosed by this 2011 paper ...http://near.nara-edu.ac.jp/bitstream/10105/8154/1/

The Arab version modified the older Egyptian arithmetic ... by writing ... http://liberabaci.blogspot.com/ ... understanding the 3,500 year life of Egyptian fractions is needed to grasp why it died ...

The older Egyptian and Greek arithmetic was 'broken" by a modern splitting method in 1997. The actual ancient arithmetic was broken and published in 2011 ... http://www.academia.edu/617613/Egyptian_Fractions_Unit_Fractions_Hekats_and_Wages_-_an_Update

Region-wide trade ended in 1454 .. when Byzantium ended ... new trading units were formalized after 1585 ...during the next century modern Arabic emerged ... forgetting its ancient math words ... and much more ...

Perhaps because I tend to personalize things for high-school students, I would put the blame on al-Ghazali. He was a formidable polymath and teacher at the height of the great intellectual flowering of Dar al-Islam, when he had a bout with skepticism. He dropped out in 1095 CE, wandered as a Sufi for 10 years, returned to teaching with new doctrines, and toward the end of his life wrote a personal memoir about his intellectual odyssey. The memoir, "al Munqidh min al-Dalal" (ca. 1110), reads like Descartes's "Discourse on Method" (1637) until, instead of having skepticism imply the prior existence of self and mind and establishing from these the existence of God, like Descartes, al-Ghazali postulates that doubt about both the self and the material universe is insurmountable, and instead makes religious experience the only source of intellectual certainty. The book is translated into English as "Al-Ghazali's Deliverance from Error" (Fons Vitae, 1999). Al-Ghazali documented his change of mind with a massive critique of metaphysics and natural philosophy, "The Incoherence of the [Aristotelian] Philosophers." An attempt to refute al-Ghazali by the great Muslim Aristotelian, Averroës ("The Incoherence of the Incoherence," ca.1160), did not get as many adherents in the next generations of Muslim intellectuals as al-Ghazali's original. The future of science then lay with the borrowers of Arabic learning instead of its originators.

Thanks William for your comment. I do agree with you about Gazali influence on Muslim thinkers and then Muslim society ( many Persian historians are studying his influence on today Persian culture) . What I did not know was that his book is translated in English that is very good news. Thanks again for your comment.....

You are most welcome. "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" is also published in English and Arabic together (Brigham Young U.P., 2000), and Averroes's refutation is Englished online at http://www.newbanner.com/Philosophy/IbnRushd/Tahafut_al-Tahafut_en.pdf

I should add that Averroës is, as Fermín Miranda-García knows above, the philosopher whose arabic name is Ibn Rushd (Abu al-Walid Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Rushd, 1126-1198), and whose books were burned on order of the Almohad Amir of Andalusia (Spain) in 1195. The story of the clash of Averroists and what I can arbitrarily call "Ghazali-ists" is eminently dramatic and full of implications for the future of both science and perhaps also of politics. One of al-Ghazali's admirers was Ibn Taymiyyah who issued the ominous jihad fatwa in 1303, and one of the admirers of Ibn Taymiyyah was Muhammad ibn abd-al-Wahhab.

I do not subscribe to the decline paradigm. With regard to the question posed here, we should not look to the side of production of knowledge but to the side of the reception. What were European philosophers searching when they studied Arabic books? They were mostly looking for the works of the great forefathers of antiquity. Once their thirst was satisfied they did not care for the indigenous production from the Middle East anymore.

I also want to argue against what William Everdell writes here. I see that as a a-historical perspective. Between Ibn Rushd and Ibn Taymiyyah about two centuries had past and between the latter and the early Wahhabis another five. Not to mention the geographical distance: Ibn Rushd lived in Andalusia, Ibn Taymiyyah in Damascus and Cairo, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab on the Arab peninsula, all three of them under a completely different political and social situation. Wouldn't all of you object if I tried that with regard to European history? Some schoolbooks from Arabic countries indeed follow such an approach and draw a straight line from the crusades to European colonialism in the region from the 19th to 20th century.

If there is an essence in European cultures that lasts from roughly the 11th to the beginning or even middle of the 20th century, where does that leave us today? How would you explain post colonialism? In the same manner, I object to essentialisations of Arab or Muslim culture on the basis of a handful of events or persons.

In recent years, historians of the Middle East have reassassed the paradigm of decline or stasis. It does not stand. The major problem is still that as Europeans did during the middle ages and the renaissance modern scholars as well had focused for a long time on the study of so-called classical works. That is to say that they were studying the works that influenced the European tradition and they studied works of Arabic philosophy mostly for their effect on that tradition. One of the main reasons why we judge the phlosophy of later periods so harshly is our ignorance about them. Most texts have not been studied, let alone edited.

As I said recent years have seen an increase in studies of the Arabic tradition in the later periods, the middle periods (12th-15th cent.) and the Ottoman era. Only now we begin to get a tentative understanding of how Arab, Turkish, Persian and other scholars continued the age-old tradition in these times and made them fruitful for their own purposes. However, already one can see how they made use of very creative approaches to the sources to their own ends. The techniques they used remind of remixing which is so prominent in today's rap and hiphop.

We find the paradigm of stasis also in other fields of "islamic" culture, for instance literature and prose in particular. Thomas Bauer of Münster (Germany) has written about this topic and the underlying prejudice in many "orientalist" studies and how this leads to false assumptions about culture at large. He is not the only one and the article I post the link to here is controversial in its harshness. Yet he makes the important points very clear and offers a good introduction to the disciplinary debates:

http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_XI-2_2007-Bauer.pdf

Islam has no philosophy but certain set of faiths. Koran has no other subject except what will happen to any person after death if one follows (i.e. behaves as per dictations of Koran) Islam and if not. that is all. Where is the philosophy ? There is no question of decline of a non existing thing.

Torsten Wollina asked: "Not to mention the geographical distance: Ibn Rushd lived in Andalusia, Ibn Taymiyyah in Damascus and Cairo, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab on the Arab peninsula, all three of them under a completely different political and social situation. Wouldn't all of you object if I tried that with regard to European history?"

No, actually, I don't think I would object. The line of Christian biblical commentary, in an intellectually unified Latin Christendom, is hardly broken from Augustine in the 5th century, to Anselm (d. 1109, contemporary to al-Ghazali), to Abelard (d. 1142, contemporary of Ibn Rushd), to Aquinas (d. 1274, contemporary of Ibn Taymiyyah). The Renaissance surely makes a break, and medieval philosopher/theologians take a very back seat in the 16th century; but for John Wesley (a close contemporary of Abd al-Wahhab), there is a continuity with Augustine established by the subsequent Reformation. There is, similarly, a relatively single line of Torah-commentary in medieval Judaism, the Rishonim, from Abraham Ben (Ibn) Ezra to Maimonides (who lived in Spain, Morocco, and Palestine, wrote in Arabic, and died in Egypt in 1204) to his antagonist Moses de Leon (d.) to Bachya ben Asher (lived in Zaragoza and Aragon in the 14th century). But it all played out in tolerant medieval Dar al-Islam (The religions there learned from each other, almost as the scientists did: Maimonides's son, Abraham ben Maimon, wrote on ethics, drawing almost exclusively from Arabic Sufi sources and participated in a dialogue about piety—hasidut—between Sufis and Jews that lasted for generations.) The break in the West's scientific tradition, caused by, inter alia, its ignorance of Greek and intolerance of pagan learning, was not accompanied by a break in its theological tradition. In Islam, I would argue, the continuity of both traditions is strong in learning centers from Medina to Khurasan, until the rejection of Ibn Rushd, a rejection not confined to al-Andalus.

Every body is talking about some historical events, personalities, situations, Egypt, mathematics and what not.

The question is about Islamic philosophy. What is that ? Will somebody explain briefly "What is Islamic philosophy" Once it is known, then we can then discuss- Did it decline or not ? In case answer is - Yes it declined, Then we will discuss- Why ?

Any discussion without this sequence is irrelevant.

I'll try, Mr. Hambarde, though I'm no expert, or reader of arabic. Islamic philosophy is what leading thinkers in the ulamas of Dar al-Islam (like Ibn Sina and Ibn Taymiyyah) have thought about the basic questions of philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology (including Psychology), Esthetics, Ethics (including Politics) and Natural Philosophy (science). Among Muslim or Islamic philosophers, Ethics is dictated by law, or fiqh, a major subject of study for Muslim intellectuals but basically an interpretive theology rather than what the West would now call a philosophy of ethics. Natural Philosophy was a big subject until about 1100 when al-Ghazali wrote The Incoherence of the Philosophers, an attempt, largely successful, to move natural philosophy (the Aristotelian heritage at the time) into the category of un-Islamic or anti-Islamic error. (In the West, natural philosophy has been moved entirely out of philosophy and renamed "Science.") That leaves for Muslims the gloriously unanswerable questions of Ontology (being), Epistemology (knowing), and Esthetics (beauty), and many philosophers and philosophical schools (e.g. Mutazilites) arguing over them. There's a textbook in English that's not so bad: Majid Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy.

Dear All Professors

I have not full knowledge of Islamic Philosophy, but I heard by some Islamic Scholars that today's all Scientific clue / events already demonstrated or expalined in the holy book the Quran.

1- Theory of relativity is already in concept, when our prophet Muhammed (S.W.S.) went to MERAJ (an arabic word).

2- Every person is able to hear the sound by bones, that are inside the ears.

3- There is also a good Philosophy (so called Sunnat) and that is---------Whenever some want to entered in the temple or Mosque, he/she step up his/her right feet first than left. By following this if any how one can feel any problem (eg.heart-attack), he/she will be felt down inside the holy place Mosque or temple.

And vice versa .............

If, he/she is coming out from the temple or Mosque should following his/her left feet first. By doing this he/she will be felt down inside the mosque by happening any mishappening.

4- one of most important concept of creation of Universe and many scientific projects are working on this including the CERN (at LHC), RHIC (at BNL) , CBM experiment (at GSI). It is also narated by the holy GOD and/also it is present in the Quran that GOD created the Universe by single point like thing.......... and the same concept is present in all above mentioned experiments.

International Journal of Cardiology

Title of paper:- The heart and cardiovascular system in the Qur'an and Hadeeth

Marios Loukas a,⁎, Yousuf Saad a, R. Shane Tubbs b, Mohamadali M. Shoja c

a Department of Anatomical Sciences, St. George's University, School of Medicine, Grenada, West Indies

b Pediatric Neurosurgery, Birmingham, AL, USA

c Clarian Neuroscience Institute, Indianapolis Neurosurgical Group, Indiana University Department of Neurosurgery-Indianapolis, IN, USA

Abstract:- Descriptions of the human anatomy derived from religious texts are often omitted from the medical literature. The present review aims to discuss the comments and commentaries made regarding the heart and cardiovascular system as found in the Qur'an and Hadeeth. Based on this review, it is clear that these early sources both had a good comprehension of these parts of the body.

http://instruct.uwo.ca/biology/9211a/PDFs/Cardiovascular%20system.pdf

Another one more link is as following:

Scientific Journal publishes Koranic paper

http://old.richarddawkins.net/discussions/541799-scientific-journal-publishes-koranic-paper

Abstract:- This is probably the first time a scientific journal has attributed ‘holy’ religious text, ignoring all the standard procedure of scientific inquiry. The paper is published in the International Journal of Cardiology, Vol 40, Issue 1, pp. 19-23 (2010). The publishing house is Elsevier.

The scientific community is appalled to see such a paper appearing in a peer-reviewed journal. By the way, the peer review process for this paper was lightning fast (5 days to get accepted!) unlike other papers in the same volume, which took on average 7-9 months. Please find this website which also publishes some of the letters sent to the editor of Int. J. of Cardiology. We need definite answers from the Editor. We need to know how pseudoscience/ religious dogma finds a place in peer reviewed scientific journals.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/roy.cfm

Letter to the International Journal of Cardiology

By Avijit Roy

The Editor of International Journal of Cardiology,

Sir,

I am an engineer by profession (having a PhD in biomedical engineering) and maintain a Bengali freethinker's site named mukto-mona. I am also the author of several Bengali best -seller books on science and philosophy. I recently came across a very controversial paper named, The heart and cardiovascular system in the Qur'an and Hadeeth (authored by Marios Loukas, Yousuf Saad, R. Shane Tubbs and Mohamadali M. Shojawhich) claimed to be peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the Editorial Board of your journal.

I am disappointed to see a reputed journal publishing, or even accepting a cleverly crafted religious propaganda. Careful study of Qur'an, Hadeeth and other Islamic resources for years, I know that like other ancient books, these scriptures also contain lot of errors and weird misconceptions in embryology, biology and medicine. For example, in one verse of Qur'an it clearly declares that sperm originates between the back and the ribs (sura At-Tariq 86:6-7) i.e, it comes from the kidneys! Note that, Greek physician Hippocrates theorized this wrong idea long before Muhammad that sperm passed through the kidneys into the penis. For centuries this was an accepted (and incorrect) belief of the origins of sperm. Aristotle though correctly described the function of the umbilical cord, also amusingly believed that sperm testicles functioned as weights to keep the seminal passages open during sexual intercourse. Not only this, Qur'an, as a whole, has a whole lot of ambiguity and meaningless statements. For example, occasionally it tells that we are created from earth (11:61), sometimes it claims from dry clay (15:26,28,33, 17:61, 32:7), sometimes "from nothing" (19:67), sometimes "NOT from nothing" (52:35), sometimes from wet earth (23:12), or from mire (38:71), sometimes from water (25:54, 21:30, 24:45), sometimes from dust ( 3:59, 30:20, 35:11) or even sometimes from dead (30:19, 39:6) etc.. So which one is true? Those contradictory ambiguous statements actually do not reveal any scientific facts regarding either how we created or what exactly we are made of. If we go forward we will see - according to Qur'an and Hadeeth, Allah’s Angels 'take charge' while sperm enters a woman’s womb (see Sahih Bukhari 1.6.315, 4.54.430, Sahih Bukhari, 8.73.17, 18, Sahih Muslim, 33.6392 etc.), Human limbs can 'carry Islamic Sins' (Sunaan Nasai, 1.149), or Human organs can even talk like a human being (41:20, 41:21, 36:65, 24:24 etc). These are becoming simply meaningless and entirely laughable if we consider the knowledge of today's context.

Of course, the authors did not mention the above funny verses from Qur'an and Hadeeth while submitting their 'scholarly' paper. Nevertheless, they did not forget to mention that honey as the good medicine referred by Qur'an, or it mentions some 'miraculous spiritual power' (?) of Zam Zam water etc. Well, Honey is not at all any good medicine in today's standard, however, was used by ancient people as medicine and food for tens of thousands of years. Physicians of Pharaoh King used to prescribe Honey for diseases. In pre-Islamic Arab, pagans used to use honey widely as medicine. In India, Ayurbedic medicine widely used honey as the ingredients of medicine thousands of years before the arrival of Qur'an. Honey was known as "Grandma's Medicine" throughout the ancient world for thousands of years. What is so miracle or even important to mention in a cutting edge journal? Lest we speak about the 'miraculous spiritual power' of a simple well the better for us. There are many well documented technical details about the well is available even in the Internet.

Lastly, the paper was not written following standard method of proper scientific enquiry. The frequent attribution of "God" (e.g. " The entire Qur'an is believed to be the direct word of God", " the Qur'an and Hadeeth recognize the pursuit of knowledge as being an act of worship to God", "God created disease and God also created a treatment for every disease", " remedy is made apparent, the disease is cured by the permission of God", "... as God removes “rage form their hearts", " scripture and remembrance of God is supposed to heal the hidden ailments of people", " Mohammad states that while praising God is half of faith", "moustache are all acts that benefit the body and thus bring one closer to God", "invoked the name of other than God", "The relationship between God and man is illustrated" etc.), and the use of non-scientific words such 'spiritual' (e.g. 'treatment can be found—spiritual healing and physical healing' , 'Although spiritual healing is most mentioned in the Qur'an ', 'heart that are described are the extensively described spiritual heart ' etc.) or 'miracle' shows the authors were trying to express a specific brand of belief, not doing proper scientific investigation or research. Our scientific knowledge has moved beyond childhood. A scientific journal should not depend on imaginary fairy-tales or a 'God in gaps' to provide for our explanations or needs. Science proposes explanations about the natural world and then puts those hypothesis for repeated testing using experiments, observations and a creative and diverse array of other methods and strategies. The paper like 'The heart and cardiovascular system in the Qur'an and Hadeeth' , on the other hand, discourage skepticism or critical examination of cherished precepts.

It is simply laughable that a reputable science journal of twentieth century would publish such a poorly argued paper - 'The heart and cardiovascular system in the Qur'an and Hadeeth'! I sincerely believe, if you publish the article in your journal, you will loose all the credibility. I hope that your consciousness will return and your editorial board will realize that this paper is not worthy at all for publication.

Dr. Avijit Roy

email: [email protected]

All above comments, from the same person, are contradicting themselves and so confusing. Actually cultural heritage has a stronger impact compared to religious guidelines. A life pattern and cultural values evolved in a very long run of public life by people compatible to geographical, climatic, conditions of the land is more important as compared to religious preachings, which come as a reaction to some unfavorable situation. The change due to change in religion has an impact on surface.

We are trying to search philosophy in religion, where it is not. Philosophy i. e. vision for life exists in life of people and in non-religious books but not in religious books.