1st October 2014
RESPONSE TO POINTS MADE IN AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED BY TROUW DAILY
The 1001 Inventions exhibition, which is currently resident in Rotterdam, is a huge
production which features range of engaging content for a family based audience. Much
more content is featured within the exhibition catalogue book which is currently in its 3rd
edition published by National Geographic.
Within the article published by Trouw Daily on the 28th of September 2014, the three critical
commentators referred to five aspects, out of the hundreds that are presented in the
exhibition, where they presumably felt confident enough to criticize the content. It is our
current position that their arguments were either weak and based on strawman fallacies or
based on a lack of their own knowledge and expertise in the subject matter. Below, we shall
provide an initial rebuttal of those five unfounded and inaccurate criticisms made about
1001 Inventions.
Response by FSTC to Trouw Daily article published 29 th September 2014
In this document the Foundation for Science, Technology and Civilisation, UK (FSTC), the
academic partners of 1001 Inventions, provides rebuttals to the accusations and criticisms
aimed at it by Broemer, Brentjes and Edis. In each rebuttal FSTC provides details of its
current references and the scholars who provided them. 1001 Inventions invites critics to
read the rebuttals and statements by FSTC in their entirety and reminds them that FSTC is
committed to providing the most accurate account of the history of science during the era
between the 7th and 17th centuries within Muslim Civilisation. As this rebuttal will be
presented in English, we are using a Google Translate version of the article to make it easier
to relate the rebuttal to each part of the original Dutch article.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE (Google Translate)
Exposition of 1001 Fairy Tales
By MARIJE BROOK AND WILFRED POLL
The exhibition "1001 inventions" of the Muslim civilization between the 7th and 17th
centuries abounds with errors, three scientists say. They give some examples.
Not "dark times" but "golden times": this is what you have to call the Islamic civilization
between the 7th and 17th centuries, says the exhibition "1001 inventions'. The scientific
achievements of this era, according to the organizers have been largely forgotten or ignored.
The exhibition is touring around the world to bring these into the limelight. It can now be
seen in Rotterdam.
The goal is to fill not only a gap in our view of the past, by showing how scholars of Islamic
societies have contributed to science, the organization wants the breeding ground for antiWestern sentiments among Muslim youth away, told initiator Salim Al-Hassani, professor
emeritus at the University of Manchester in an interview with NRC Handelsblad.
For this noble purpose, historical reality has been violated, says Sonja Brentjes, an historian
1st October 2014
specializing in the history of science in Islamic societies and affiliated with the Max Planck
Institute for History of Science in Berlin. "This exhibition is teeming with errors." With fellow
scientists from all over the world, she is working on a book that the myths of the exhibition
must fight. She continues: "That Muslim scholars have contributed to science, is a fact, and
it's good to draw more attention there, but they deserve our respect for the work they did,
not for fairy tales about what they did not.”.
It is mainly the lack of a clear definition of "science" by which they are disturbed. There is no
distinction between modern science enMiddeleeuwse said Brentjes: "In the 19th and 20th
centuries a deep rupture occurred with earlier science, philosophy, history, geography,
medicine and technology. Denial or trivialisation of that rupture is falsification of history.”.
Historian Rainer Bromer, expert on Islamic medicine, endorses this objection. "Visitors will
have a long line of stand-alone 'facts' to see, but historical connections are hardly explored.
It suggests that Islam science has sparked the modern world, but you cannot just say that.
The whole “we were first” narrative is not correct.".
Some examples:
1 Two flying men
High above in the exhibition hovers a model of Ibn Firnas. This 9th century Andalusian would
have built the first flying machine "Whenever you see a plane, think of Ibn Firnas," said actor
Ben Kingsley in the introduction movie of the exhibition.
According to Brentjes, historical sources do not say that he has built a flying machine "The
name of Ibn Firnas and his attempt "to fly like a bird” appears in a 9th-century poem by a
contemporary. Later his name appears twice in a book, in the 10th and 17th centuries. But
these were no witnesses, the descriptions are short, they contradict each other, and their
sources are vague. “
In the exhibition is another flying man, Hezarfen Ahmed Celebi, an Ottoman in the 17th
century. He would have flown in Istanbul from the Galata Tower, with eagle feathers stuck
on its wings, to the Bosporus. "Even if you see this as a glider flight, you can not get out,"
said Taner Edis, a physicist attached to the Truman State University in the USA "A full flight
across the Bosporus? Anyone who has ever been there, knows that you would not get that
in your head. You can see with your naked eyes, there's not even a calculator for that.”
FSTC comment on Manned Flight :
Here FSTC addresses the following:
1. Sources and references used in preparation of texts in the 1001 Inventions book and
exhibition, more than those quoted by the critics.
2. Misrepresentation by the critics of text in the book – use of “muscle power”, “first
rocket flight”. These do not appear in the book.
In the arguments Broemer says: "The counterfeit flying machine in the exhibition indeed
1st October 2014
looks like a glider. But in the exhibition book it says that Ibn Firnas moved his arms up and
down like a bird. Besides, the only historical source that has something concrete to say
about Ibn Firnas, from the 17th century, describes a kind of bird costume, not a glider.
But Brentjes doubts the robustness of the sources.
We relied on a Former Max Planck Professor (Prof. M. Abattouy) now Professor of History
and Philosophy of Science at Rabat Mhd V University. He has this to say about the sources
on Abbas Ibn Firnas flight: If the critics have any dispute, they should level it at him.
Quote from Prof. Abattouy:
Here is the paragraph that can be quoted without hesitation, as I had checked the sources
and am sure of the references:
“ʿAbbās ibn Firnās died in 887. His precedence in flying is documented in more than a poem.
We have a relatively detailed narrative in Al-Muqtabis min anba' ahl al-Andalus by Abū
Marwān Hayyān ibn Khalaf Ibn Ḥayyān al-Qurtubi (987–1075 CE). The book was lost for a
long time and was found only a few decades ago.1 However, even before it was found, the
account of Ibn Hayyan was quoted by other ancient Arabic historians, such as the Andalusian
historian Ibn Sa'id al-Maghribi (d. 1286 CE) and the 17th-century Moroccan historian AlMaqarri.
The narrative of Ibn Firnas' flight was summarized by E. Lévi-Provençal in The Encyclopaedia
of Islam as follows: "He was even a distant precursor of aviation, thinking out a sheath
furnished with feathers and mobile wings; had the courage to put it on, to jump from the top
of a precipice and to hover in the air for a few seconds before falling—escaping death by a
miracle."2
In the testimony of the Andalusi historian Ibn Sa'id al-Maghribi (d. 1286 CE) in Al-Mughrib fi
hulay al-Maghrib' flight lasted more than a few seconds, as he reports, based on Ibn
Hayyan's Al-Muqtabis, that he was airborne for "a long distance" (masāfa ba'īda) 3:
The same is in Al-Maqarri's Nafh al-tib 4:
Both Arabic references describe a relatively long distance flight.5
References:
1. The Muqtabis was published many times: see the edition by Būlus Kitnar (Paris, 1937;
Series "Textes arabes relatifs a l'histoire de l'Occident musulman", N° 3) and the edition by
Abd al-Rahman al-Hajji, Beirut, 1965.
2. E. Lévi-Provençal, "‘Abbās b. Firnās b. Wardūs, Abu 'l-Kāsim", in Encyclopaedia of Islam,
2nd edition, Leiden (print version: volume I, p. 10).
3. See:
‫األن دل سي ل غرن اطيا س ع يد الب ن ال م غرب ح لى ف ي ال م غرب‬، ‫ب يروت‬: ‫ل ل ن شر ال ع لم ية ال ك تب دار‬،
‫ال م ن صور عمران خ ل يل ت ح ق يق ـ‬.1997
4. See:
‫ال رط يب األن دل س غ صن من ال ط يب ن فح‬، ‫ال ت لم سان ي ال م قري محمد ب ن أحمد‬. ‫ب يروت‬: ‫ صادر دار‬،
1968، ‫ع باس إح سان ت ح ق يق‬، ‫ جزء‬3، ‫ص‬. 374.
5. Both sources rely on Al-Muqtabis by Ibn Hayyan Al-Qurtubi (edited by Abd al-Rahman alHajji, Beirut: 1965), vol. 2, pp. 227, 238.”
1st October 2014
Physicist Taner Edis criticizes the use of muscle power. This is irrelevant as our interpretation
of the references is that the flying machine was a glider. This is shown in the physical exhibit,
the game and the film. Also the figure in the book shows clearly that (despite one of the
references say he moved his wing up and down) we show a man carried by a glider.
Edis also criticizes the glider flight of Hazarfan Ahmed Celebi . Our source of the information
is from a renowned authority, Prof. Dr Ing. Arslan Terzioglu, Istanbul University, Department
of History and Ethics.
We extract from his paper: “The most interesting of the attempts at flight in the TurkishIslam cultural circles were those of Hazarfan Ahmed Celebi and Lagarî Hasan Celebi in 16301632 during the reign of Sultan Murad IV. Evliya Celebi, who personally witnessed these
flight attempts, gave this information in his travel book, Seyahatname, hand-written copies
of which can be found in the Libraries of Istanbul.”
More details are in his book, Beitrage zur Geschichte der turkisch-islamischen Medizin,
Wissenschaft, und Technik (Analecta Isisiana), published by Isis Verlag, Auft edition (1996),
ISBN-10: 9754281009.
A paper by him summarizing this is published in:
http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/attempts-flight-automatic-machinessubmarines-and-rocket-technology-turkish-history
Broemer also accuses us of referring to first rocket
FSTC Comment:
We actually say first manned rocket. Our source on this is from renowned historian Prof. Dr
Ing. Arslan Terzioglu of Istanbul University, see above reference.
May we point out that Dr Broemer is referred to as from the well known Istanbul
University, whereas our understanding is that he is actually at a private Fatih university in
Istanbul.
2 Discovery of the circulation
"In the 13th century, Ibn al-Nafis explained the small circulation to be the system of oxygen
supply of oxygenated blood through the lungs exactly." As can be read in the exhibition book
"1001 inventions'.
"This can not be right," says Rainer Bromer. Not only because the concept of "oxygen" is
discovered until five centuries later. Bromer: "Ibn al-Nafis, like his contemporaries, thought
that the blood had unidirectional flow. In his work, the word "circulation" does not appear.
He suggested, however, that the blood ran through the lungs going, but it was to - loosely
translated - filter so that it was appropriate to make the very fine substance of the soul along
brewing the blood.
The work by Ibn al-Nafis cannot be seen as anatomical research says Bromer. "Dissecting
humans and animals he rejects strongly in his writings nagebleven. His theory is based on
theological speculation about the nature of the soul.”
1st October 2014
Another stumbling block is a drawing of the circulatory system, as portrayed. In
contemporary biology books, in the chapter on Ibn al-Nafis, it is suggested, Broemer says,
that Ibn al-Nafis' theory of the circulation was identical to the modern, while there was no
agreement. “
For Emilie Savage-Smith this misrepresentation was the final straw. She is Professor of
History of Islamic science at Oxford University and advised the curators, but they did not
listen to her. When she could not stop this image being used, she decided to immediately
stop her cooperation.
FSTC Comment on Ibn Nafis
Here FSTC addresses the following:
1. Misrepresentation of text in the 1001 Inventions book, by selective quotation.
2. The current debate around the issue, ignored by the critics
3. Work being done by FSTC to address this issue.
Broemer has unfortunately been unfairly selective.
He selected a sentence from a section paragraph in the book, which attempts to clarify the
old terms used by Ibn Nafis, by using modern language.
Broemer neglects the preceding paragraph in which the exact terms used by Ibn al-Nafis are
given. By so doing, his argument supposedly as an unbiased scholar, loses all credibility. Here
is what the 1001book actually says in page 166:
In his (Ibn Nafis) own words he said: ‘…the blood from the right chamber of the heart must
arrive at the left chamber, but there is no direct pathway between them. The thick septum of
the heart is not perforated and does not have visible pores as some people thought or
invisible pores as Galen thought. The blood from the right chamber must flow through the
pulmonary artery to the lungs, spread through its substance, be mingled with air, pass
through the pulmonary vein to reach the left chamber of the heart…’
In modern language, this is translated as follows. Blood that has waste in it comes into the
right atrium through the large vein called the vena cava. Filled with this waste-rich blood, the
right atrium then contracts, pushing the blood through a one-way valve into the right
ventricle. In turn the right ventricle fills and contracts, sending the blood into the pulmonary
artery which connects with the lungs. There, in the capillaries, the exchange of carbon
dioxide and oxygen takes place. The blood is now oxygen-rich as it enters the pulmonary
veins, returning to the heart via the left atrium. The left atrium fills and contracts, pushing
oxygen-rich blood through a one-way valve into the left ventricle. The left ventricle contracts,
forcing the blood into the aorta from which its journey throughout the body begins.
Selecting a couple of sentences, from the second paragraph, is both misleading and
unscholarly.
Broemer also refers to a diagram used to show to the modern reader the actual blood
circulation. This is the diagram, which Broemer reports, angered Professor Emilie Savagesmith.
Whilst we may be accused of bias on this subject, there is a heated scholarly debate about
the matter, especially about the naming of Ibn al-Nafis “blood passage from the heart via the
1st October 2014
lungs and back again to the heart” (whether circulation or transit or passage). Only last year,
in a keynote speech by the renowned Spanish historian Professor Julio Samso (Barcelona
university), at the International congress on the history of science, technology and medicine
in Manchester UK, he showed a slide on Ibn Nafis, which named the blood passage as
Pulmonary Blood Circulation. Some historians of medicine strongly object to such naming
others think differently
On this topic, we have had to wait until the dust settles between the differing scholars. Now
we are taking steps to introduce prudent changes in edition4 of the book.
In seeking the truth on such matters, we have also commissioned a major multi-authored
book on the history of medicine lead by Professor Peter Pormann, former Oxford
University and now at university of Manchester. The findings from this scholarly work will
eventually find its way to exhibition.
3 The first camera
The 10th-century Ibn Al-Haytham (also known as Alhazen) would have discovered how the
eye works, and have paved the way for modern cameras. Way If one of the children in the
introduction movie picks up his smartphone to take a picture, looms the figure of Ibn AlHaytham on. Without him, the message was that guy that can not do.
That is still the question. "Ibn Al-Haytham was a brilliant scholar who actually invented a
new way to understand the light," says Brentjes. "But from his time to today is a long way.
Modern optics can not be switched with that of his. Equal a smartphone includes many new
insights and inventions after his time.”
The exhibition book is a kind of Newton-and-apple-told story. Ibn Al-Haytham ends up in jail
after a failed mission to regulate the Nile. In the wall is a hole through which light enters the
dark cell. So he came up with the idea of the camera obscura. According Brentjes Edis and
the concept of the camera obscura had already long known in different cultures. "IbnHaytham was the principle and he is not that developed to a higher level."
The exhibition, they say, puts him in a "vacuum". The Muslim scholar would have been that
rejected the theories of the Greeks 'full'. First But the break was not so radical, says Edis and
Brentjes: Al-Haytham was just greatly indebted to the work of especially Aristotle, Euclid and
Ptolemy.
FSTC Comment on Ibn Al-Haytham:
Here FSTC addresses the following:
1. Misrepresentation of the text in the 1001 Inventions book.
2. Correcting the belittling, by the critics, of the contribution to optics made by Ibn AlHaytham.
Here it seems that our critics want to belittle the contribution of Ibn al-Haytham.
We are amazed by this, as it flies in the face of numerous scholarly works by renowned
historians of science, such as professor Roshdi Rashed, professor Ahmad Djabbar, Professor
A. Sabra, professor George Saliba, Dr Nadir Al-Bizri, professor Richard Lorc and Dr D C
Lindberg,.....
1st October 2014
We give here a lengthy response from Prof. Mohamed El-Gomati, OBE, of York University
and Chair of FSTC Board. Prof El-Gomati is a world renowned expert in electron optics, holds
several world wide patents in electron microscopy and the author and co-author of more
than 200 original scientific papers related to his field of study. He is also an expert on Ibn AlHaytham, see his paper on Ibn al-Haytham published by the UNESCO Natural Sciences
Journal http://www.unesco.org/science/infocus_full_oct_05.shtml, .
This is his response to this section:
Ibn Al-Haytham’s book on Optics, a 7 volumes mammoth piece of work, not only settled the
issue of the process of how do humans see, but in doing so experimentally demonstrated for
the first time some fundamental properties of light.
The word “camera obscura” is indeed a term that needs addressing here, both in its Arabic
origin and its fundamental relationship to a modern day camera. Ibn Al-Haytham used a dark
room in his studies, which calls in his book “Albeit Almuzlim”, the first Latin translation for
this, which we still use today, was “camera obscura”. Any one familiar with the art or science
of optics would recognise some fundamental properties of the camera obscura, in the
modern camera. For example, the size of the “hole” has some detrimental effects on the
function of the “camera obscura” that Ibn Al-Haytham discussed in his book for the first
time. Make the hole smaller and you will see a sharper image. Any further reduction and you
will hit diffraction effects. Make the hole large and one would lose the image quality due to
the spherical aberration effect. The term “spherical aberration” was first introduced and
discussed by Ibn Al-Haytham. We find it sad that the critics of the book have not read the
literature, old and new, which credits Ibn Al-Haytham with such discoveries. It may be worth
mentioning here, for the benefit of the critics, that correcting for spherical aberration in
electron microscopy has only been successfully accomplished in 1997 by the then Cambridge
scientist Ondrej Krivanek, FRS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ondrej_Krivanek).
We all, scientists and laymen alike, use the word “lens” to describe that optical device,
several billions across the globe wear them on a daily basis and cannot do without them. The
critics should ask themselves some simple questions about this: where did this term come
from? And who first used it? And why? “Cornea” and “retina” are two other terms
introduced by Ibn Al-Haytham that we still use today.
But perhaps something he has not been credited with is the development of the method we
scientists and engineers alike can’t do without - the scientific method of enquiry. The first to
suggest this method and successfully use it was Ibn Al-Haytham. He uniquely uses the word
“Itibar” to describe the experimenter, a word that describes someone who also thinks,
deeply thinks!
Yes, there is indeed room for improvement of the 1001 inventions exhibition and its
literature. We acknowledge our human “fallibility”. But please let us be candid and
acknowledge the positive contribution of the book and exhibition in popularising the
massive treasures of knowledge that those working within the Muslim civilisation and
culture during the European so called dark ages have contributed. We assert that the critics,
including many with a background and training/education in the history of science, have
failed over the years to tackle the lack of acknowledgement of the pioneers who worked
during the years 700-1700 in enriching the world at that time (then) and our world (now)
alike. We suggest that the critics should ask themselves, have they contributed any book(s)
1st October 2014
that laymen or young students can consult and learn from which refer to this period? We
further suggest that the critics, need to stop and think and to engage with the public in a
positive way, rather than just attack an initiative that is trying to redress the failings over the
years in acknowledging the contribution of scientists and engineers during the European
dark ages.
I invite Brentjes, Broemer and Edis to read, in the hope that they may learn, how Ibn AlHaytham referred to Ptolemy, in particular in his book “Kitab Al-Manazir”. In the
introduction of Kitab Al-Manazir, which Ibn Al-Haytham wrote as a critique of Ptolemy's
‘Almagest’ book, he begins by saying that his (Ibn Al-Haytham) methods will involve
"criticising premises and exercising caution in drawing conclusions" while he aimed to
"employ justice, not follow prejudice, and to take care in all that we judge and criticise
that we seek the truth and not be swayed by opinions".
4, the first clock
The main hall of the exhibition is dominated by a four-meter high Elephants Clock. Copied
from a sketch from the 'Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices ", from the
12th-century scholar Al-Jazari. He plays a starring role in the exhibition.
The main hall of the exhibition is dominated by a four-meter high Elephants Clock. Copied
from a sketch from the 'Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices ", from the
12th-century scholar Al-Jazari. He plays a starring role in the exhibition.
The inventor of the crankshaft put his huge clock that runs on water together of elements
from all corners of the world - a phoenix from Egypt, a carpet from Persia, dragons from
China. Because, explains the exhibition book, the device was intended as a tribute to the
multicultural society. Al-Jazari wanted 'the diversity of humanity "and the" universal nature
of Islam' celebration. That view is baseless and anachronistic judgments Brentjes and Edis.
And Al-Jazari was not the first water clock invented, though he spent several innovations.
That he would stand by modern clocks put it to the cradle is nonsense, says Brentjes.
"Modern clocks use a completely different technology and scientific knowledge.”
FSTC Comment on Al-Jazari Elephant Clock:
Here FSTC addresses the following:
1. Misrepresentation by the critics of text in the 1001 Inventions book.
2. The words “first clock” are not used anywhere to describe the Al-Jazari clock
3. Full credit and mention are given to clocks that came before, with dates and
locations.
The first clock? Nowhere in the exhibition, nor in the book, nor in our academic website, are
Al-Jazari clocks named as the first clocks. In fact, in the relevant sections of the book,
reference is made to earlier clocks from ancient civilisations. Here is how the chapter on the
Elephant Clock in the 2nd edition of the book begins:
1st October 2014
“About eight hundred years ago, Al-Jazari built this elaborate clock in order to celebrate the
diversity of mankind and the universal nature of Islam. At this time, the Muslim world spread
from Spain to Central Asia. So, to reflect this scope, Al-Jazari used Greek (Archimedes) water
principles combined with an Indian water timing device (ghati), an Indian elephant, an
Egyptian phoenix, Arabian figures, a Persian carpet and Chinese dragons. The figure on the
top of the castle is thought to be the Sultan and is included as a sign of respect to the
leader. The features also symbolized countries and trade, and each animal had a myth
associated with it: the elephant was a symbol of royalty, the phoenix of rebirth and life, and
the dragon of power and impregnability.”
The 3rd edition also refers to earlier, “ancestor” clocks such as Greek and Egyptian clepsydras
and Indian ghatika-yanta, Chinese, Indian, Greek clypsedras .
How could we say Al-Jazari’s clocks (1206 CE) were the first when in the same book we refer
in page 336 to the clock gifted to Emperor Charlemagne by Caliph Harun al-Rashid in year
797 CE?
It seems the critics only see what they wish to see.
We have also published on earlier clocks such as:
The Mechanical Water Clock Of Ibn Al-Haytham (965-1039 CE) at
http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/mechanical-water-clock-ibn-al-haytham#001
We are glad to announce that we have commissioned a major work on the history of
clocks, with numerous engineering graphics based on original manuscripts. This is already
under review by publishers.
5. Woman as a scientist
You make the exhibition to know one of the first female scientists: the 10th-century
astronomer Maryam from Syria. About her father, the astronomer al-IJlija Astrulabi, is a
thing known. But according to Rainer Bromer, the curators named 'Maryam' invented.
Bromer: "The only historical source that is known about her, is half a sentence:" ... and his
daughter was also familiar with the instruments. “
"That means that they themselves bedreef science is highly questionable," said Bromer. "We
do not know." In more places, the role of Muslim women in the history of science
exaggerated, according to him. The exhibition book is seen, for example a math workshop
where women work side by side with men. Fictitious "historical" print Historical sources
show that Muslim women never performed such tasks. They also monitor the print goose
feather in their hands, while it was written. Reed pens in Muslim civilisations
FSTC Comment on Women as Scientists:
Here FSTC addresses the following:
1. Proof of the use of the name Maryam
2. Proof of numerous women working with men.
Broemer accuses the curators of inventing the name Maryam. We like to refer him (If he can
1st October 2014
read Arabic) to an authentic source provided by the Syrian Archaeological Society
http://tishreen.news.sy/tishreen/public/print/78755
This is in the “Proceedings of the conference on “Libraries and Documentation of
Manuscripts” held on 5-6 July 2006 at the Directorate of Culture, Aleppo. On the occasion of
Aleppo Capital of Islamic Culture.
They refer to the name of Maryam, daughter of Abul Faraj Al-Ijli, both as astronomers at the
time of Saif al-Dawlah. See highlighted in red colour. ‫ عيسى‬:‫علماء في مجاالت العلوم البحتة والتطبيقية‬
‫الرقي ـ كشاجم ـ أبو الفرج العجلي وابنته مريم العجلية وهما عالما فلك في عصر سيف الدولة ـ ابن الحنبلي ـ ابن سلوم ـ أبو‬
‫المحاسن الحلبي ـ القفطي‬
In order to verify this we have correspondence to confirm this from Professor Mohammed
Qujja, the President of the Syrian Archaeological Society, who is an expert on history of the
Aleppo Castle where Maryam was based.
If our critics want to learn more about names of numerous women of science and medicine,
who deserve to be recognized, they should wait for a book on the subject, which is being
commissioned by FSTC for publication. We would also like to point them to a major work by
Dr Muhammad Akram Nadwi (Fellow at Oxford Centre of Islamic Studies ) on “The Women
Scholars in Islam” London and Oxford: Interface Publications; 2007, xxii+314 pp; ISBN 97809554545-3-0; HB; 978-09554545-1-6 PB.
From this and various other authentic works, we see that famous male scholars like Ibn
Hazm Al-Andalusi were taught by women scholars.
Critisizing an artist impression in the book showing women working beside men. we find to
be rather unfortunate and petty.
Seen in Rotterdam. Exhibition "1001 inventions" now organisers
Behind 1001 inventions', the British Foundation for Science, Technology and Civilisation, an
organization that according to its website whose mission is to explore the benefit of 'social
cohesion' and 'intercultural appreciation. "The cultural roots of science' Director Salim AlHassini. In 2006 he organized a small exhibition in Manchester, with funding from the British
government. A few years later, the Abdul Latif Jameel Foundation (ALJ) as a sponsor involved
in the exhibition. 1001 inventions' grew and traveled the world, including New York and
Istanbul. ALJ is an established company in Saudi Arabia, which is Toyota's distributes in 13
countries. In addition, it is an international philanthropic 'Community Initiatives' branch,
from which the installation of the exhibition "1001 inventions" shown in Rotterdam, partly
funded by. The practical organization of the exhibition in Rotterdam is outsourced to event
agency ONEGO Events.