Avicenna

by Kyle Perra

There is much to say of the many famed philosophical thinkers of previous generations who set the standards on knowledge in the world we know and cherish today. These celebrated persons, such as Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilee, William Harvey, Thomas Aquinas and countless others have long been studied and their works analyzed by many thousands of people. These philosophical thinkers and scientists alike surely deserve their fame, which they have earned through strong critical thought and experimentation, however I am left uncertain on whether or not everyone within the long chains of philosophical practice have each had their fair share of credit, in which the big names I have mentioned I believe unfairly hold too much of. How it is possible that a person who began or influenced greatly the ingenious ideas of evolution, the concept of momentum, algebraic problem solving, the multiverse and many others could slip under the radar so severely is beyond my imagination. Moreover, the fact that I did not know of the man Ibn Sina who is credited to be “the most universal thinker and man of science in Islam,” by Olaf Pedersen in his book The First Universities, published in 1997, and Ibn Sina’s many contributions to everything I have mentioned thus far is completely embarrassing. Without this man Ibn Sina, who I can now hold in high regard, our world and the way that we can systematically understand it would have been dramatically affected. Furthermore, the scientific understanding of the human species and it’s biological make up would surely be severely lacking. Ibn Sina died almost one thousand years ago and he likely knew more regarding our existence as humans within his primitive world than many could possibly fathom today; the fact that he came to so many intellectual conclusions without the technology we take for granted today should attest to his genius.

Ibn Sina, often referred to as his Latinized name, Avicenna, lived during a time of great intellectual advancement known as the Islamic Golden Age. As proclaimed by Soheil Afnan in his book Avicenna: His Life and Works, published in 1958, during this time, many cultures such as Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Manichaeism, Nestorian Christianity and Islam blended and worked together in order to form the foundation of many facts we know about our world and ourselves today. Avicenna’s father, who was appointed as a local governor in Kharmaithan, obviously was of some high standing. It was here in Kharmaithan that Avicenna and his younger brother were born. Shortly after, they moved to Bukhara, a known Buddhist center at the time due to Arab conquest, and thusly a place of large Islamic study. The origin of Avicenna’s father is not quite clear because so many cultures have claimed Avicenna to be of their own kind. It is notable though, that during Avicenna’s wanderings, he deliberately avoided Turkish areas and sought the company instead of Persian rulers. Also notable when considering what culture Avicenna might have been born into is his mother’s name, Setareh, a pure Persian word meaning star, suggesting her Persian descent.

Avicenna’s early years were met with long hours of studious tasks, as is mentioned by Farhang Zabeeh, in his book Avicenna’s Treatise on Logic, published in 1971. Avicenna’s father took the education of his sons very seriously and sent them both at early ages to initiate their education. As Avicenna mentions in his autobiography, which was depicted by his long time pupil Gorgani, “During a period of ten years I learned the Koran and the belles-lettres. I surprised everyone by my aptitude for learning the various sciences.” Unfortunately for Avicenna, his region in which he grew up was marked by religious unorthodox – an important thing to note as to possibly explain his difficult life, with no shortage of persecution. While his father belonged to the Ishmaeli section and often attempted to expand his beliefs onto his sons, Avicenna withheld. Avicenna notes that, “Often he (Avicenna’s father) discussed the Ishmaelian concept of the nature of the soul and the intelligence with my brother. I listened and thought, but was never convinced, and, although they tried to convert me to their religion, their efforts were useless.” This however did not discourage Avicenna’s father from continuing his stubborn son’s education and he “discussed geometry, philosophy and Indian arithmetic and it was he who sent me to a grocer to learn Indian numerals which I mastered quickly.” Around this time a man named Abu Abdullah-Natali, whom gathered some fame for his philosophy, came to Bukhara. Avicenna’s father immediately sought him out and encouraged him to stay at his home in hopes that he would instruct young Avicenna on philosophy. Avicenna quickly picked up on what Natali had to offer him. In his autobiography, Avicenna mentions that, “I made an original inquiry into the problem of genus (which refers to the types of different things) which surprised my teacher.” Natali, whom was nervous that Avicenna’s father might discontinue Avicenna’s education, quickly encouraged the father to not engage Avicenna in any other occupation. From this plea and on, Avicenna began his life as a great polymath who would affect the world over greatly.

Eventually Natali left Bukhara, and his young pupil Avicenna then began an energetic spree of learning across many subjects such as arithmetic, astronomy, medicine, logic, metaphysics and so many more, all on his own and on his own time. Avicenna had an obvious desire to learn, and over the rest of the entirety of his life he did so vigorously. It was due to this attitude that Avicenna was able to contribute on many important things we know today. The idea that space is larger than any human can fathom, even with the technology we obtain today, is firstly due to Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi’s famous concept of a multiverse. However, possibly even more important was the foundation Al-Razi worked on top of with his astronomical questions: the Aristotelian and Avicennian Geocentric Model of our world. The Geocentric Model, often referred to as the Ptolemaic System, “is the superseded theory, that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that all other objects orbit around it.” This idea served as the dominant cosmological system in several ancient cultures, such as Ancient Greece. When considering the Geocentric Model there were two observations made that led to the universal acceptance of the theory. Firstly, it was observed that the stars, the sun and other planets seemed to revolve around the earth each day. Furthermore, every star was on a ‘celestial’ sphere, which lined up when using the North and South Pole as an axis. Secondly, the Earth does not seem to move when observed from the Earth itself. Both observations thusly led to the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe. Al-Razi noted the Aristotelian and Avicennian model and took to the study on his own. When considering the concept, Al-Razi used his knowledge of atomism to state that there are “a thousand thousand worlds (alfa alfi ‘awalim) beyond this world such that each one of those worlds be bigger and more massive than this world as well as having the like of what this world has.” To support his argument, he cites the Qur’anic verse, in which he was well knowledgeable on, “All praise belongs to God, Lord of the Worlds,” pointing closely to the term “Worlds.” Through his religious and celestial knowledge, Al-Razi rightfully predicted the Geocentric Model to be inaccurate and while he did prove Aristotle and Avicenna to be incorrect, it was through their observations that Al-Razi was able to claim the vastness of our universe and the possibility of multiple universes.

Avicenna’s yearning for knowledge didn’t end there and, in fact, he had much more to observe about the world he lived on. In one of Avicenna’s many books, The Book of Healing, Avicenna reflects on the concept of momentum in a way that many today might recognize as an early version of what Galileo Galilee and then, eventually, Isaac Newton had to say on the theory. While following closely with Aristotelian Dynamics, Avicenna was able to contribute to the theory of Impetus, which was developed by John Philoponus in the 6th century. Avicenna was credited with the development of a strikingly different theory than Philoponus however, in which he made a distinction between the inclination and force of a projectile, and concluded that motion was a result of an inclination ( mayl ) transferred to the projectile by the thrower, and that projectile motion in a vacuum would not cease. Furthermore, Avicenna also referred to mayl as being proportional to weight times velocity, which is obviously the basis for our concept of inertia today as well as Isaac Newton’s concept of momentum. The Avicennan-Buridan self-conserving impetus theory initiated one of the most important thought-experiments in the history of science, namely the so-called ‘tunnel-experiment’, so important because it brought oscillatory and pendulum motion within the pale of dynamical analysis and understanding in the science of motion for the very first time and thereby also established one of the important principles of classical mechanics. Without Avicenna it is unclear where the state of these theories, hugely important to our existence, might be today. It is possible that Isaac Newton without the Impetus Theory might have never bothered with the classical mechanics we know today. It is certain though that without Avicenna this subject would have required much more ground work and thusly would have taken famous thinkers such as Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes and Isaac Newton longer to develop.

Avicenna was largely known for his treatises on logic, in which he followed closely with Aristotelian views and beliefs. Being the polymath that he was, it was essential for Avicenna to debate what knowledge is, and what could make something knowable. In Aristotle’s De Anima (On the Soul), Aristotle divides the mind into three parts: sensation, imagination and intellection; moreover, when one perceives an object, his mind composites a sense-image. When he remembers the object he previously sensed, he is imagining its form (the image of the imagination is often translated as “phantasm”). When he extracts information from this phantasm, he is using his intellect. Through the ideas Aristotle and also with the help of later commentaries on Aristotle’s work, Avicenna was able to develop a strong theory for his own beliefs on epistemology. This epistemology of Avicenna’s is founded on the theory that the soul is independent of the body and also capable of abstraction. This theory is where Avicenna developed his so-called ‘flying man’ argument and thought experiment, which can be found in his writing Fi-Nafis/De Anima (Treatise on the Soul). The experiment questioned that if a person were created in a perfect state and condition, blind and also suspended mid-air causing this person to be incapable of understanding anything through their senses, would this person be able to confirm their own existence? Even in this state, the argument would be that the person could identify themselves through their thinking, thus confirming their existence; however, the experiment substantially confirms the importance of the soul. This theory inevitably develops the ideas of hylomorphism, in which both Avicenna and Aristotle were involved. It is often thought that Aquinas simply followed Aristotle with his doctrine on Intelligible Species. However, this is not the case. There were many doubts had about the Aristotelian corpus, in which Avicenna studied closely. Those who followed Aristotelian thought tried to resolve the problems of intellection and hylomorphism. This scientific experimentation done by Avicenna and a man by the name Averroes led to a result of denying Platonic forms and affirming hylomorphism; these scientific observations were directly drawn from for the development of Aquinas’ doctrine of Intelligible Species. Thusly so, without Avicenna, Aquinas’ heavily discussed doctrine of Intelligible Species either would have contained some of the inaccuracies of Aristotle from his original theories on hylomorphism or the doctrine would have not been constructible altogether.

Interestingly so, none of the above contributions in which I have spoken in depth on are of the fore front of Avicenna’s treatises and theories. In fact, the man Avicenna who is given little credit in our modern era for the many things he has accomplished and theorized would only and mainly be known for his huge contributions to medicine, which cannot be overrated. Avicenna is often referred to as the father of modern medicine and the father of aromatherapy for the creation of his ‘Kanon.’. In the four centuries that followed Avicenna’s life, his Canon would be the main treatise for reference in medieval medicine. “In his five books Avicenna gave a clear picture of general medicine, pharmacology, pathology, nutrition, and hygiene, all based on a synthesis of Hippocratic and Galenic observations and on Aristotle’s ideas on biology. With its clear clinical descriptions and precise therapeutic notes, the Canon gave the art of healing in the middle ages a solid foundation – more solid perhaps than the theories on which it was based. Its importance… can hardly be overrated, and to this day it is read with respect as the most superior work in this area that the past has ever produced.” The medical encyclopedia as previously mentioned was contained in five books, each broken apart to deal with separate but confusing issues. The first reintroduced the Galenic ideas of four temperaments, or humours, alongside some general anatomy and physiology. The second introduced clinical pharmacology, in which the original Galenic ideas of four humours was severely lacking of. Alongside this the second book introduced pharmaceutical sciences and the hugely important theory of inductive logic, which can be seen as critical for the scientific method. Book three contains the function and diseases of each organ head to toe, a diagram in which many of those who sought out medical careers took to heart. Book four contains information on diseases that might affect the entirety of a person’s body such as a fever. The last book contained an extensive list of compound drugs used to treat several diseases and was also among the first writings to suggest remedies for cancer and other tumors. Not greatly mentioned in the Kanon, but heavily practiced by Avicenna was what can be seen as some of the first successful surgeries, a practice which Avicenna encouraged – a severe contrast to physicians at his time.

Avicenna’s Canon, and namely his sections regarding anatomy directly influence the ideas of Ibn Al-Nafis whom was greatly involved in William Harvey’s later theorized systemic circulation – critical to medicine as it describes the process of the heart and of blood throughout the body. It is in Avicenna’s section on anatomy, pathology and physiology that historians find the first descriptions of pulmonary circulation. Al-Nafis, whom would write a commentary on the Canon’s anatomy section states that, “…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 vena arteriosa (pulmonary artery) to the lungs, spread through its substances, be mingled there with air, pass through the arteria venosa (pulmonary vein) to reach the left chamber of the heart and there form the vital spirit.” Al-Nafis took Avicenna’s foundation, as many philosophers and physicians did and are still doing today, and grew upon it, introducing their own ideas and observations that later lead to the theories of people we are more inclined to know of today. In this situation it is William Harvey whom used the foundation of Avicenna’s, and then Al-Nafis’, in order to directly involve his own theories in modern medicine today; and while the first discussions on pulmonary circulation will be credited Avicenna and Al-Nafis, it is Harvey who is today famous for his systemic circulation: a complete description of the properties of blood being pumped through the body by the heart. This science is well known today and is taught scholastically in our schools as matters of scientific fact. Thusly, without Avicenna our knowledge on how the different parts of our body receive nutrients and oxygen would had to have been the work of someone else, whom would have been severely late on the subject and also possibly severely lacking.

Some might say that it was Galen’s ideas with his four temperaments that truly influenced the ideas of medieval and then modern medicine and that Avicenna merely hopped onto the bandwagon. However I would argue that Galen’s methods were missing what is possibly the most important part of the entirety of the Canon of Medicine: clinical pharmacology. In Galen’s practice, if a person was ill then there was a systematic way of understanding what disease the person was ill of and what could possibly be the best way to treat them. Not a bad system to have in place. However it was when Galen was unable to treat a patient where I can personally see the main flaws of his practice. Simply, Galen had no means of trial and error, and everything that was stated about his four temperaments was expected to be followed in the same manor for every person under the classified disease regardless of previous treatments and their fatalities. In Avicenna’s clinical pharmacology, there were seven things to consider when treating a person.

  • “The drug must be free from any extraneous accidental quality.”
  • “It must be used on a simple, not a composite, disease.” 
  • “The drug must be tested with two contrary types of diseases, because sometimes a drug cures one disease by Its essential qualities and another by its accidental ones.”
  • “The quality of the drug must correspond to the strength of the disease. For example, there are some drugs whose heat is less than the coldness of certain diseases, so that they would have no effect on them.”
  • “The time of action must be observed, so that essence and accident are not confused.”
  • “The effect of the drug must be seen to occur constantly or in many cases, for if this did not happen, it was an accidental effect.” 

“The experimentation must be done with the human body, for testing a drug on a lion or a horse might not prove anything about its effect on man.”

There is very little evidence of people acknowledging the necessity of clinical pharmacology that is except for the great mind, Avicenna.

Avicenna’s careful practice of medicine helped him gain the favor of many high courts during his long life, without which it is likely that he would have never been able to accomplish the many works he created, including his all-important Canon. Without Avicenna, many things that we know today in modern medicine would be lost. More importantly though, Avicenna and the development of, not just the Kanon, but all of the theories in which I have mentioned, directly influenced the education system of his time and the many centuries to come. His philosophical ideas and clinical observations have led to a history of both scholastic and dynamic learning. Scholastic in such a way that his Canon was a must-know for anyone whom knew anything about medicine – a huge piece in what people believed should be studied at the time in order to be a truly educated being. Dynamic in such a way that while not all of his theories are recognized as facts today, these same theories challenged the knowledge of likely thousands of educated persons and built the foundation for which much of what we recognize as fact today is built on. Without Avicenna, I believe there would have been a huge delay in the mass education of people, thus possibly leading to a downfall in intellectual thought all together. Luckily for us, the man Ibn Sina did in fact live and did all of what I have mentioned for the human kind. He lives on today through his many ideas, which are still very relevant within our society and also through the many institutions based on Unani medicine in which Avicenna’s ideas directly influenced. These same institutions of which there are hundreds dedicated to the advancement of the four temperaments are still very prominent today throughout the world and especially in the world’s eastern half.

The Madrassa of Al-Qarawiyyin

by Kyle Perra

Education surely has been, and hopefully forever will be, a main concern for the human race. Since even before the beginnings of what we could call civilizations, people have sought out knowledge in hopes to better understand themselves and the world in which we live. Being that education is as important as it is, there has always been much debate over what the best teaching method may be. While everyone seems to have their own ideas and interpretations of this method, it would be most intelligent to turn to history instead for that answer. I believe that I have found that answer in the world’s oldest continually operating university. The Madrassa (educational institution) of Al-Qarawiyyin, also known by its westernized name, Al Karaouine, was founded in 859 C.E. as a religious university which I believe attests to its lengthy duration. However, there are many that consider religious universities to be flawed in their pedagogy and, more recently, even dangerous for the rest of the world. Such universities and, more importantly for this essay, those which are tied in with the Islamic religion, have been under great speculation recently for the supposed teachings of dangerous and hateful ideas towards western society. It will be the point of my essay to educate naysayers of religious teaching on the Madrassa Model as a whole, in hopes that their better understanding of the subject will lead them away from stereotypes. Moreover, I will explain how a student’s understanding and dedication to the sacred does absolutely nothing but further enable knowledge acquisition. Through these arguments I will also show that knowledge and the sacred are largely inseparable.

For well over twelve hundred years now, Al-Qarawiyyin has been in operation as both a place of worship and higher education. The mosque as a whole is of the typical madrassa style as it is greatly distinctive in its architecture, which has been changed a few times within its lengthy existence. The mosque itself also has an interesting beginning, which sheds light on some on the great benefits of being a part of the Islam society during this time period. The madrassa was founded in 859 C.E. as previously mentioned, in Fez, Morocco by a young princess, Fatima Al-Fihiri. The young princess migrated to Fez with her father, Mohammad Al-Fihiri, from a town named Qairawan (present day Tunisia). Mohammad Al-Fihiri was known as a successful businessman and, at the time of his death, passed along a great fortune to Fatima and her sister, Mariam. Both sisters were believed to have been well educated, as is typical in Muslim society, and decided the best way to spend their inheritance would be the building of a large mosque in their new hometown. They decided to name the mosque Al-Qairawaniyyin, which was slowly shortened to Al Qarawiyyin due to the fact that many people of their old city Qairawan now resided with them in Fez. Originally the mosque was built of only medium size when compared to its sister madrassas which were mainly on the eastern half of what was known as the Greater Middle East. From the mosque’s history, we are able to see that women played a large role in many factors of Muslim life and the fact that the two sisters were even able to be educated attests to the greater amount of equality within Muslim society. Also interesting, when considering the history of Al-Qarawiyyin, is the devotion that people had towards education. These two sisters could have spent that money for their own personal gain, but chose to better their society’s educational prospects instead. Fatima and Mariam were also not alone in their contributions, as various sultans did not delay in providing the mosque with subsidies, gifts and sometimes with treasures, especially books.

After its completion, Al-Qarawiyyin quickly developed into a place of religious instruction and political debate, gradually extending its curriculum to include the natural sciences as well. Among the subjects taught, alongside the Qur’an and Fiqh, were courses on grammar, rhetoric, logic, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, history, geography and even music. The great variety of topics that were able to be deeply explored quickly drew in scholars from the entirety of the Muslim world, which was quite huge during this period. Eventually the number of applicants became so overwhelming that the university had to introduce a much more rigorous selection system than it previously had which included many things, but primarily required a completion of learning the entire Quran. This rigorous system did not go to waste, as Al-Qarawiyyin quickly attained prestigious fame for producing a number of high profile scholars and pioneer scholars: Abu Abullah Al-Sati, Abu Al-Abbas al-Zwawi, Ibn Rashid Al-Sabti, Ibn Al-Haj Al-Fasi, Abu Madhab Al-Fasi, Ibn Maimun (Maimonids), and Al-Idrissi. Sources also list a number of peers such as Ibn Al-‘Arabi, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Al-Khatib, Alpetragius, Al-Bitruji, Ibn Harazim, and Ibn Wazzan, all said to have all taught in Al-Qarawiyyin.

A university with such a high number of scholars who would inevitably shake the foundation of the world over with their treatises, experiments and conclusions surely had a great pedagogy and there were many factors to the madrassa model that would inevitably demand its fame for teaching. The madrassa model was also very distinct at the time of its creation for not just being heavily involved with spirituality and the sacred, but also for having almost its entire curriculum based on the teachings of such. This is where the madrassas gain most of their negative speculation, however I believe that this is where the madrassas also gain most of their benefits.

There are many strengths, alongside with having your education based on religious devotion, a few of which I will be addressing in this paper. First and foremost, the enthusiasm and determination in which Muslim students place upon their education is completely outstanding when compared to students in an educational system without religious devotion. This is because of many things, but primarily because of what the entirety of the Muslim religion is all about: a person’s submission to god. A submission to god requires many things within the Muslim religion, one of them being a devotion to the acquisition of knowledge. Before a Muslim student can even begin their path towards higher education, that same student must first go through the basic and elementary teachings of the Quran. The Quran will eventually become the students guide book to life not only in a moral sense, but also in an educational one when considering many upper division classes use the Quran as their textbook. It is only after the student has mastered the Quran and its verses that this student may then begin their application process to one of the many mosques that involve themselves higher education. When a student is put in a classroom and is asked to participate in the enhancement of their knowledge it is surely beneficial to have sufficient reasoning. This is exactly where institutions without religious devotion severely lack behind the madrassa model, for it is the initial focus of the student that will lead to their better acquisition of knowledge. This is why parents are always so greatly connected to the educational system, for without religious devotion it becomes the parent’s job to encourage their children to sit in a classroom all day when they could be involving themselves in the simple pleasures of childhood. When you are able to connect education to the purpose of someone’s existence, it surely makes a great impact on that person’s thinking. Children within Muslim society quickly learn of the necessity of their devotion to God and when it states in a person’s guidebook to life, like the Quran is for these Muslim children, that a person must educate themselves, they gain an initial enthusiasm which will push them to surpass those without it. This kind of determination is key to the success of the madrassa model and can also be shown within many factors of it. For example, a Muslim child reads the Quran and follows the society in which he or she was born into. This same child eventually succeeds into higher education and performs their devotion to God. Now that this person has followed through with their education, they many now go into one or many of the several working positions of the Muslim society. For the purpose of this example, let’s say this person decides to become a teacher. Now we have the initial factor – children who believe they are doing God’s work by receiving education, and we have a secondary factor – the teacher who believes in the same submission to God. Both of these factors can only be benefited by their respective enthusiasm and determination, thusly leading to just one of the many great strengths of the madrassa system.

Now that we have both students and teachers essentially working with the enthusiasm one might work with when considering the entirety of one’s purpose, the madrassa model can really start to pick up pace. This initial enthusiasm to submit one’s self to god, which as I have shown eventually leads to the enthusiasm in everything a Muslim person might do, only benefits virtually every factor of Muslim education. The required completion and understanding of the Quran in its self can also be shown as a benefit to the Madrassa Model. It is widely known today that a person’s reading is directly relevant to that same person’s intelligence. It is through this and the idea of cognitive development that the madrassas of Al-Qarawiyyin’s time period were able to gain the interest of Professor Glenn Hardaker of the University of Huddersfield. Professor Hardaker took note of how, “The level of memorization that students can achieve and the importance of orality in transmitting the sacred text underpin the teaching. For example, a typical student of al-Qarawiyyin is able to memorise a page of text in approximately five minutes.” This is an incredibly remarkable task that was likely only possible during the period in which Al-Qarawiyyin was first constructed by the methods of the madrassa model. Professor Hardaker went on to explain that, “Our observations found that Islamic pedagogy shares many similarities with the cognitive perspective to learning theory… Chomsky (1962) claimed that higher learning could only be achieved through a combination of conditioning and the internal mental state of the learner, which, he argued, should also be analyzed and understood. This view is extended by research into cognitive learning styles that also identifies the increasing importance of cultural sensitivity (Evans and Cools, 2009). The notion of ‘conditioning’ and ‘cultural sensitivity’ can also be seen in the context of the educational environment of al-Qarawiyyin, where pedagogic strategies for influencing the internal mental state of the learner are adopted.” Alongside this, the separation from the modern environment in Fez, Morocco completely compliments these ideas of ‘conditioning’ and the ‘internal mental state of the learner’ both physically and spiritually. It is physically supported through Al-Qarawiyyin’s lasting architecture, which for example does not allow automobile access. It is supported spiritually through how “classes are scheduled around the five daily prayers, and the call to prayer (adhan) sets the rhythm of the day.” This type of approach on education also reflects the importance of the cognitive learning theory. Professor Hardaker shows this by mentioning how, “al- Qarawiyyin supports the belief of knowledge and the sacred through the daily recitation of the Qur’an from sunset or maghrib prayer. For some the education of the day is reinforced by the continual recitation of the Qur’an… The cognitive perspective adopted by many educationalists has similar constructs of importance and for some an acceptance of spiritual belief playing an important part in the cognitive learning process. The concept of self-efficacy, a learner’s belief that they can positively take action to manage a situation, was central to the development of the theory. In our experience at al- Qarawiyyin we felt that the institution’s pedagogical model provides a unique insight into such an application, in particular, through memorization and the potential for the embodiment of knowledge.” Al-Qarawiyyin’s unique construct and the entirety of the madrassa model surely thusly can be shown to greatly improve a student’s perception, attention, memory, language and thinking; all a part of cognitive psychology.

Perhaps one of the greatest parts about the madrassa model’s ability to develop a student’s cognitive skills is that the development of those skills were likely started at a very early age. Furthermore, this cognitive ability would have already been at least slightly developed by the time the student went into higher education as the recitation of the Quran is required for the madrassas that dealt with higher education. Considering this, it can be assumed that when a Muslim student was deemed ready for higher education, that same student had the determination of his life goal carrying him and his cognitive ability was at least slightly matured. This brings us to the next strength of the madrassa model, which is simply the madrassa’s basic format: the Halaqat al-‘Ilm (Halaqa for short).

The Halaqa was and still is today possibly the most distinctive part of the madrassa model. Halaqa, which can literally be defined as ‘a gathering of people seated in a circle,’ or ‘a gathering of students around a teacher,’ was essential to the means of a Muslim education. The ‘study circle’ as it is sometimes referred to, has many strengths behind it and was possibly one of the greatest reasons as to why Muslims dominated education during the time of Al-Qarawiyyin’s initial construction. Part of this is because of the close connection between the students and their teacher. Firstly, the environment is obviously extremely informal, allowing both the students and the teachers to feel more at ease. This informal environment was essential to the pedagogy of Muslim education, as much of what was taught was taught through debate. Allowing both the teachers and students to be more at ease would insure that these debates not be quiet by any means and, “Although the teachers were in charge of the Halaqas, the students were allowed – in fact, encouraged – to challenge and correct the teacher, often in heated exchange.” Knowing that a person wouldn’t be discouraged then for their comments or questions surely led to a strong teacher-student connection. This brings us to the second strength of these Halaqas – these teachers were likely greatly respected by their students. Especially at a young age, the teacher becomes an instant role model for their students, whether they like it or not. Everything that teacher therefore does will reflect directly upon to the students. Considering this, I cannot think of a stronger bond than that of a teacher and student, other than those of family. When you add that type of bond to the enthusiasm in which both persons are reacting, something truly special must have been created. Such relationships were a standard for the madrassa model and when such a relationship is used educationally, the possibilities surely must be endless. Students would automatically be more at ease, which in turn relaxes the teacher. With the teacher relaxed, discussions go more smoothly. When students are more at ease they are more likely to speak their mind, resulting in more advanced and complete discussions. When these same students speak their mind, their vocational skills mature and the cycle continues. All of this complimented by the fact that both teacher and student believe they are acting upon God’s will, and such an act is the purpose of their life – the submission to God.

Such a system continued itself into our own present day, giving us with the longest continually operating educational institution of the world. But could anyone be surprised that such a solid pedagogy became what it is today, for I surely am not. However there are still those naysayers who don’t believe such a system should be acknowledged for its accomplishments and there are still those who believe that it’s nothing but dangerous to teach opinions of how to live as absolute fact. I might agree with the latter, but not with the Muslim religion. Furthermore, I would point out of any of the Ten Commandments can be found in multiple places of the Quran. Therefore, if these Muslim schools have no place teaching religious items as absolute fact then neither do the Christian ones of the western world. Also, to those who would mention that knowledge and the sacred should simply be separate of each other, I would say that their separation is clearly impossible. Although there are those who have completely de-sacrilized knowledge after being formed as such by modernization, “the root and essence of knowledge continues to be inseparable from the sacred for the very substance of knowledge is the knowledge of that reality which is the Supreme Substance, the Sacred as such, compared to which all levels of existence and all forms of the manifold are but accidents.” Considering that intelligence is the tool of man towards knowledge, and that intelligence can also and is also used every day to try to define the Absolute, I must inevitably find them inseparable. Regardless of this idea, I believe it must be allowed, for not only Al-Qarawiyyin but by all religious universities, that such universities exercise their own pedagogy. For that of Al-Qarawiyyin and the rest of the madrassa model, I believe the system by which they teach their students must be recognized firstly by its unprecedented success. Furthermore, the religious aspect of the madrassa model must be recognized solely by its ability to inspire not just students but the entirety of that educational system.