How Islam changed medicine
BMJ 2005; 331 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7531.1486 (Published 22 December 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;331:1486
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dr. Majeed has mentioned how Arabic translations of Sanskrit writings
were done and disseminated to the Western World. But were they
acknowledged as originating from Ancient Hindu medical treatises? Or were
they just passed on without referring to the glorious and unparalleled
tradition of Healing in Ancient India?
The treatise "Medicine, an Illustrated History" by Lyons,Chief Surgeon and
archivist, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, states, and I quote verbatim,
"Further, the translation of the Ayurvedic literature into Persian and
Arabic in the eleventh century A.D. led eventually to further spread of
Indian Medical lore into Europe as writings in Arabic became part of
European culture in the Middle Ages."
India was well versed in surgical techniques, and surgical
instruments used then bear a striking resemblance to those used nowadays.
Rhinoplasty, ear-lobule repair, cataract extractions etc were all
routinely carried out.
Caesarean section was performed.
Readers of the BMJ may be interested to know that as early as 200 B.C. to
200 A.D. a system of ethics was defined and expected to be followed by
medical practitioners of the times, which is almost identical in content
and spirit to the Hippocratic oath. "In many ways, the student's final
commitment resembled closely the Hippocratic Oath of Greece. Our Code of
Ethics stated 'Dedicate yourself entirely to helping the sick, even though
this be at the cost of your own life. Never harm the sick, not even in
thought.....The physician should observe all the rules of good dress and
conduct....He must not speak outside the house of anything that takes
place in the patient's house....May the Gods help you if you follow this
rule. Otherwise, may the gods be against you.'"
Perhaps an editorial on the contributions of the ancient Hindus to
modern medicine would be featured by your journal in time to come. Your
readers would find it an eye-opener.
Reference: "Ancient India" p 104 - 119, in 'Medicine An Illustrated
History', by Lyons A.S. and Petrucelli II, R.J., Publ. Harry N. Abrams
Inc, New York, 1978.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
It is sad to see that a colleague calls all Middle-Easterners
"Arabs". Persians, Turks, Afghans, Kurds, Pakistanis, etc., are not Arabs,
no do they speak Arabic. In the Middle East, Persians and Afghans speak
Persian, Turks speak Turkish, Pakistanis speak Urdu, Kurds speak Kurdish,
etc. No do all Middle-easterners are Moslems. There are many
Zaratostrians, Christians, Jewish, Hindu, Bahais, etc. Avicenna and Razes
were Persian, not Arab. Kharazmi was Persian Zaratostrian, not a Moslem.
Arabs called him "majus" means non-Moslem. One wonders when the history
can finally be portrayed without bias.
Competing interests:
None
Competing interests: No competing interests
The article isn't about Arab contributions to medicine only. Its
about Muslims as a whole.
Many people would consider Persians aka Iranians to be Arabs. Arab
isn't just restricted to people from Saudi Arabia and is commonly used to
refer to people from the Middle East as a whole.
I assume the reason you use the term persian is to try and distance
him from Arabs and therefore Muslims.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I very much appreciated the editorial "How Islam changed medicine".
Professor Majeed comments that Al-Nafis "described the pulmonary
circulation more than 300 years before William Harvey". Harvey always gets
the credit in the West, but I would like to take the opportunity to remind
readers that it was the very tragic Michael Servetus who was the first
Western writer to describe the pulmonary circulation, in "Christianismi
Restitutio" in 1552, finally printed a year before he was burnt at the
stake in Geneva. Lomas points this out in his article in the same issue of
the BMJ (1).
Colombo (1516-1559) can also lay claim to having made the discovery,
in "De re anatomica" (completed in 1559). It would seem that all three men
made the same discovery independently, and for different reasons. Al-Nafis
realised the interventricular septum was too thick to allow blood to pass
across. Colombo noticed the large blood flow of the pulmonary vein.
Servetus realised the significance of the size of the pulmonary artery. Al
-Nafis was first, but none developed an understanding to include the
concept of a systemic circulation. That indeed was Harvey's discovery.
Sincerely,
&c
References
1. Lomas D. Painting the history of cardiology. BMJ 2005;331:1533-
1535.
2. Cattermole G. Michael Servetus: physician, Socinian and victim. J
R Soc Med 1997;90:640-644.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
In his essay on “how Islam changed medicine”, Majeed wrongly implied
that Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Al-Razi (Rhazes) were Arabs (1). Avicenna was
a Persian scientist speaking the Persian language as his mother tongue. He
wrote both in Persian and in Arabic during the 11th century. During
Avicenna’s lifetime, the conventional language for scientific
communication was Arabic. Persian scientists writing in Arabic were not
Arabs. Similarly in modern times, international scientists writing papers
in English for publication in peer-reviewed journals are not necessarily
English by birth. Indeed, Avicenna wrote some of his landmark works in
Persian, a task that would not have been performed by an Arab scientist.
Avicenna’s Persian heritage including his Persian language and his Persian
works are well described in Prof. Muntner’s analyses and reports about the
Persian medicine and its relation to Jewish and other medical science (2).
Adding the prefix “Al-” to the names of scientists or books does not make
them Arabic in origin. Al-Razi (Rhazes, 864-930 A.D.) is also Persian,
born at Ray, Iran (3,4). Persians and other non-Arab nations have
contributed significantly to what is known as Islamic era medicine,
science, literature and architecture. Modern day historians of the
Islamic medicine and science should reflect the facts accurately, avoid
misrepresentations of the history and concede to the contributions of non-
Arab nations.
References:
1. A. Majeed, BMJ 331:1486-1487
2. Z. Muntner, Harofe Haivri Heb Med J 1, 101-11; English transl 166
(1952).
3. L. Richter-Bernburg, Med Secoli 6, 377-92 (1994).
4.L. F. Haas, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 54, 483 (Jun, 1991).
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
When I was in Medical School,a good friend of mine,who was not a
Medical Student once said to me "dear Luis,as a good Scientist your are
also a perfect barbariam",meaning that I only was interested in topics
related to my Scientific formation and nothing else.
Professor Majeed's article is a wonderful contribution towards avoiding
this "Barbaric Trend" both in Medical Students and Graduated Doctors
alike.The roots of our current knowledge are as important today as is the
latest technical development in the practice of Medicine,if we want to be
real Doctors instead of simple "Barbaric Scientists"
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I felt sorry after reading Mr Yogendran's response to Dr Majeed's
article 'How Islam Changed Medicine'.
What he feels is 'boring' is very interesting and important for
millions of Muslims throughout the world. The purpose of Dr Azeem's
article was precisely to target such prejudiced readers, who have no
interest in finding out the true history of Medicine. Ask any doctor in
the UK to name a Muslim physician who has contributed towards Medicine, or
ask Mr Yogendran to name the hundreds of surgical instruments invented by
Muslim surgeons that he uses and you will know why Dr Azeem's article is
so important. Due to the prejudices of the West the history of Medicine
has been selectively edited and the role of Muslim scholars deleted.
I think there is no need to mix present politics with this subject.
Before pointing towards others, Mr Yogendran should perhaps consider how
radical changes in his part of the world may be changing medicine.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Professor Majeed's article is timely, and not simply because it's
Christmas: an awareness of this rich history is an antidote to much that
is hateful in current politics. It may hearten Professor Majeed to know
that many of the physicians he mentions, especially Ibn Sina, are widely
honoured by us medical herbalists, who also attempt to emulate his wholism
in our practice.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I would like to thank Professor Majeed for his editorial. Such an
article to enlighten all who practise modern medicine about the origins of
what we practise was long overdue.
I am a junior doctor training in Obstetrics and Gynaeoclogy and graduated
from a British medical school. Unfortunately I am constantly faced with
ignorance from colleagues and patients alike about the global positive
contribution of Islam as a civilisation.
In response Dr Yogendran's comments,I would like to state that such a
subject is not boring to a medical student in the UK and a lecture such as
this would have certainly got me into the lecture theatre as a medical
student.
The decline of intellectual power came about within the Islamic
civilisation when lack of tolerance and lack of pluralism set in. We must
learn from this as lack of pluralism within our society today could also
weaken us, as we stand at the forefront of medical advancement in the
West.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Denying India its rightful dues by claiming Islamic contribution
It was quite extraordinary reading Dr.Azeem Majeed's article
regarding the glorious contributions of Islam to medicine. The moot point
is that did the physicians he mentions ever think of themselves as
Islamic? Did they contribute because they were Islamic or it was an
accident of fate because those countries by military might had achieved
pre-eminence just as Europe did in the 17-20th centuries? Did they
contribute because they thought themselves as Islamic for the greater
glory of Islam or just because they were good physicians who had an
opportunity of a prosperous state, some powerful patrons ( a la Medici) It
is also quite laughable to claim that all the medical heritage of Greece,
Egypt and other countries would have been lost if not for Islam. Islamic
armies destroyed all the ancient Universities of India such as Takhshasila
and Nalanda where literally hundreds of students studied from countries as
diverse as Rome, Greece, Sri Lanka, China, Cambodia, Thailand, etc. Hats
off to the Islamic doctors for saving the ancient texts from being
destroyed by the military of their own countries.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests