THE BEST DIVISIONS FOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE REGIONS pdf download

The Best Divisions For Knowledge Of The Regions Ahsan Al Taqasum Fi Marifat Al Aqalim By Al Muqaddasi

THE BEST DIVISIONS FOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE REGIONS

the same themes in Qustâ together with those front Paul of Aegina, Alexander of Tralles, Oribasius, and others, while contrasting Qusta’s account with Arabic sources. The sheer quantity of Bos’s examples demonstrates Paul’s direct influence on Questa.

They also serve as a case study of Paul’s influence on Arabic medicine, the extent of which has not as yet been fully assessed.

also suggests that Qusta may have derived his information directly from Aristotle’s zoological works, rather than from Arabic sources. In his historical analysis, however, there are several problems.

Bos disturbingly lumps at-Tabari, at-Razi, al-Majiisi, and Ibn Sina repeatedly as ‘Arab’ or ‘Arab author rs’ (6, 11, 12, 88, 98, 111, 136).

 He overlooks the fact that, although their works were written in Arabic, they all came from the Persian geographical and cultural milieu with its formative significance for their intellectual development.

Furthermore, the use of terms such as ‘infection’ (157) is distinct from ‘contagion’ (do), and ‘contamination’ Or ‘contaminated’ (10, ‘19, 21, 59) as distinct from ‘bad’, ‘foul’, or ‘fouled’ water is both inappropriate with their underlying modern assumption of a ‘germ’ theory of disease and unnecessary.

(For instance, Qustâ’s reference is simply to more ware that contains ‘bad’ elements or minerals which ‘corrupt’ its purity, aRect its taste (bitter, salty, sour) or appearance (thick, turbid), and which consequently could make one sick {chap. 9, p. 39).)

The application of such terms to Arabic/Islamic medicine would be highly questionable before the scientific understanding of the microbial cause and mechanism of disease in the nineteenth century.