See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259484074

Ash'arite's Atomistic Conception of the Physical World: A Restatement

Conference Paper · July 2013

DOI: 10.1063/1.4858648

CITATIONS READS
0 730

3 authors:

Firdaus Pozi Faizal Mohamed

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    68 PUBLICATIONS   378 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohd Yusof Othman

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
168 PUBLICATIONS   4,420 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Islam and Pluralistic Society View project

STEM, STEMind, STREAM, SEE Nature, MyNEPS, TQTA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Firdaus Pozi on 31 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ash'arite's atomistic conception of the physical world: A restatement
Firdaus Pozi, Faizal Mohamed, and Mohd Yusof Othman

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1571, 163 (2013); doi: 10.1063/1.4858648

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4858648
View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/proceeding/aipcp/1571?ver=pdfcov
Published by the AIP Publishing

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
202.184.124.14 On: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:12:24
 Ash‘arite’s Atomistic Conception of the Physical World: A
Restatement
Firdaus Pozia, b, Faizal Mohameda and Mohd Yusof Othmana,b
a
School of Applied Physics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
43600, Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
b
Institute of Islam Hadhari, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
43600, Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Abstract. Atomism plays an important role in the history of human thought. It can be traced back from Democritus
atomos in the 500 BC to particle physics and quantum theory in the 21st century. However, as it being rejected and
developed in the course of history of science, it still brings the fundamental question that perplexes physicists. It gives the
views that the world is eternal; that the laws of nature is immutable and eternal therefore all phenomena can be
determined through the laws and that there is no reality behind the quantum world. In this paper, we shall briefly describe
all these three views on the nature of the physical world or universe and this include on the nature of matter. Then, we
shall explain our stand on those conceptions based on the Ash‘arites atomistic conception of the physical world. We hope
this paper can shed a light on several fundamental issues in the conception of the universe and gives the proper response
to them.
Keywords: Continuous re-creation, eternity of the world, reality, laws of nature, causality, atoms, accidents.
PACS: 01.65.+g, 01.70.+w

INTRODUCTION
Modern science has followed many trends of early Greek natural philosophy by reconsidering the problems
which natural philosophers had tried to solve in their attempts to understand the surrounding world. For instance, on
4 of July 2012, physicists around the world celebrated one of the historical events of the 21st century when the LHC
at CERN, Geneva observed the existence of a Higgs-compatible boson [1,2]. It was consistent with what had been
proposed by the theoretical physicist, Peter Higgs who theorized the existence of Higgs fields that interacts with
other particles to give them mass. This Higgs field requires the existence of a particle which he called the Higgs
boson. Ultimately, this scientific endeavor aims to solve the biggest question in particle physics and perhaps in the
whole of physics, that is, how the universe comes into being [3]. However, despite his contribution to provide an
answer in one of the problem in completing the Standard Model puzzle, it raises another question: what if the Higgs
is a composite of more fundamental ‘particles’ [4]. In other words, it implies an endless searching in order to arrive
at certainty on the nature of the universe.
Obviously these questions can be traced back to the pre-Socratic times when philosophers during that time tried
to resolve the central problem namely, nature of becoming into being and of change [5] and one of the established
school of thought during that era was the atomists formed by Leuccipus and Democritus (d. 370 BC) through their
theory of atomos. Besides Greek philosophy, two other civilizations that discuss at length the nature of matter and
the origination of the world that are Islamic and Indian civilizations. For instance, discussion on the nature of matter
and the cosmos in Indian civilization can be seen in the doctrine of Buddha, Jain and Nyaya-Vaisesika [6,7] whilst
in the Islamic civilization, we can find a similar discussion amongst the theologians like Ash‘arites, Maturidites,
Mu’tazilites and the Ṣ ufīs. However, they differ fundamentally from the Greeks at which the Greeks foundation is
philosophy whilst the doctrine in Islamic and Indian civilization comprehend the nature of matter and cosmos based
on a metaphysical foundation extracted from their respective creed.
Therefore, this paper will briefly describe three different views of the world throughout the history of Western
science in terms of their apprehension of the nature of matter and the place of God in relation to the cosmos. Then,
we shall state what is our own stand based on the Ash‘arites view of the world and how we demonstrate the
Omnipotent and Will of God in Creating and Fashioning the world compared to those three views. All these
conceptions are crucial to be understood by Muslim scientists as they are now being exposed to many theories and

The 2013 UKM FST Postgraduate Colloquium

AIP Conf. Proc. 1571, 163-168 (2013); doi: 10.1063/1.4858648
© 2013 AIP Publishing LLC 978-0-7354-1199-9/$30.00

163 to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject
202.184.124.14 On: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:12:24
 postulates with sophisticated arguments and observational data but somehow contradicts with our creed. It is
important to stress here that science is not value-free, instead it is value-laden [8,9]. Thus, it is our task to critically
examine their premises, general conclusions and the interpretation based on that conclusion so that the problems
faced by modern science are not being imported to the mind of Muslims scientists. As Naguib al-Attas puts it:

Modern philosophy has become the interpreter of science, organizes the results of the natural and social
sciences into a world view. The interpretation in turn determines direction which science is to take in its
study of nature. It is this interpretation of the statements and general conclusions of science and the direction
of science along the lines suggested by the interpretation that must be subjected to critical evaluation, as they
pose for us today the most profound problems that have confronted us generally in the course of our
religious and intellectual history [10].

Thus, the purpose of this paper is to provide a substantial argument, especially for Muslim scientists as a
meaningful response whenever they encounter this kind of argument and to encourage Muslim scientists to
appreciate the works of the scholars of the past and creatively develop from it in our times so that we are able to
reaffirm our own cosmology even though could be potentially being ignored by the majority of the scientific
community especially in the West.

THE IMPORTANCE OF METAPHYSICAL BASIS IN PHYSICS

Before we go further, it is important for us to establish the importance of metaphysics in order to understand the
physics and the hierarchical order of both of them in understanding the nature of the universe. But first, we have to
define the term ‘physics’ and ‘metaphysics’.
According to Mortimer J. Adler [11], the subject matter of physics is the sensible word of changing things, or
matter in motion. If it is not involved with the phenomena of change, it no longer belongs to the realm of physics.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī also gives a similar definition, physics (‘ilm al-ଣabī‘ah) is the study of material bodies that
undergo change and are either in motion or repose [12]. On the other hand, metaphysics (ilāhiyyāt), which literally
means ‘after the Physics’ is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the ultimate reality of things (ontology),
the nature of the universe (cosmology), and the existence of God (theology) transcend from sense experience and
reason.
On the question of change, which is a movement involving space and time and presuppose diversity, it seems
that modern physics considers change is to be the ultimate nature of reality; that change is absolute. We do not deny
this position as we affirm that movement is real but we negate that change must be absolute; for we maintain that
reality is both permanent and change. To be precise, we affirm that there is something permanent whereby change
occurs [13].
However, some recent physicists such as Stephen Hawking has claimed that philosophy (maybe he referring to
metaphysics) is dead in his book The Grand Design [14]. He believes that philosophy has failed to answer important
questions about the universe whereby physics has succeeded in giving solution to the problem. On the other hand,
some physicists and philosophers still argue that metaphysics still play an important role but because of their
understanding and doubt about what metaphysics really is, they believe that metaphysics must, in some way, be
based on the best available or recent physics [15]. We believe the reasons why they arrived at that conclusion is
because of physics is ever changing, therefore metaphysics also have to change in conformity with current
understanding of physics and the vagueness of understanding about fundamental elements such as the understanding
about God, the nature of the universe and its connection with God and the place of man in the universe.
Our stand with regards to this problem is we do not separate metaphysics from physics nor are we denying one
of them as a valid and certain knowledge. Furthermore, our understanding about God, the nature of the universe and
the place of man in the universe is clear and absolute at the fundamental level as provided by the religion of Islam.
However, one of them whether physics or metaphysics must be the foundation or base to another. In this case,
metaphysics is the foundation and the interpreter of physics. This is aligned with Ibn Sīnā’s affirmation and
concurred by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī that physics are derived not from physics itself but from metaphysics [12]. It is
importance for metaphysics to be the basis of our physics so that we do not deviate from the purpose of studying
nature as signs of God because science itself is a definition of reality [16]. Therefore, our crucial task today is to

164 to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject
202.184.124.14 On: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:12:24
 establish our own framework of understanding the world without denying explicitly or implicitly God’s Power and
Omnipotence.

DIFFERENT VIEWS OF COSMOS IN THE HISTORY OF WESTERN SCIENCE

Generally there are at least three main different views of the world throughout the history of Western science in
which each of them arrived at different views on the nature and existence of God [15]. Those views belong to: (i)
Aristotelian physics, (ii) modern philosophy and classical physics and (ii) the contemporary physics drawn from the
theory of relativity quantum theory. In Aristotelian physics, God still has a place in his theory of motion. He is the
unmoved mover or primary and final cause that causes motion in anything. However, Aristotle’s God is like a
craftsman, all motion He cause are eternal [5]. Therefore, the world is eternal, there is no beginning and end, it had
always existed and would always exist [5, 17].
Next is modern philosophy which is important to be mentioned because modern philosophy is the interpreter of
science [13] and the important figure who contributes in the modern philosophy discourse was René Descartes (d.
1650). In his Discours de la Méthode (1637), Descartes declared that he has found "laws which God has put into
nature". God has impressed the ideas of them on the human mind in such a way, that their universal validity cannot
be doubted. He also explained that God, after the creation of matter, let nature develop from chaos in accordance to
these laws. Even if God had created several worlds the "laws of nature" (loix de la nature) would be valid in all of
them [18]. As for classical physics, it can be seen from the works of Sir Isaac Newton (d.1727) especially on the
laws of gravitation and motion in which he believed that the discovery by extracting phenomena and reformulating
it into the mathematical structure to be the way of knowing the creation of cosmos by God. These laws which are
immutable and became the laws of nature before the advent of quantum mechanics. For Newton, the world of matter
was a world possessing mathematical characteristics fundamentally. It was composed ultimately of absolutely hard,
indestructible particles, equipped with the same characteristics which had now become familiar under the category
of primary qualities. He also asserts that all changes in nature are to regarded as separations, associations and
motions of these permanent atoms. In his own words:

“All these things being considered, it seems probable to me, that God in the beginning formed matter in solid,
massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, in
such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them; and that these primitive
particles, being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous compounded of them; even so very hard, as
never to wear or break in pieces: no ordinary power being able to divide what God himself made one in the
first creation” [19].

“Yet, had we proof of but one experiment that any undivided particle, in breaking a hard and solid body,
suffered a division, we might by virtue of this rule conclude that the undivided as well as the divided particles
may be divided and actually separated to infinity” [20].

The last one is contemporary physics that was much influenced by the birth of quantum theory and the theory of
relativity but we shall focus on quantum theory since it considers the nature of the subatomic particles. There are
many interpretations when it comes to the nature of the subatomic world in quantum theory and the most well-
accepted interpretation among the physicist is the Copenhagen interpretation propounded by Niels Bohr and Werner
Heisenberg. The most concern question with regard to quantum theory is the nature of reality; that there is no reality,
that the physicist “creates” the reality, that there are ‘many realities”, that the reality is “spiritual” and so forth [15].
Briefly, the Copenhagen interpretation is bound to view that there is no reality behind quantum phenomena i.e.
observations and data. All is required according to this view is (i) a set of mathematical formulae and (ii) a set of
experimental data obtained in the laboratory.

165 to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject
202.184.124.14 On: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:12:24
 THE CONTINUOUS RE-CREATION OF UNIVERSE
There are three different views on the origination of the physical world in the Islamic cosmology. First is the
view taken purely from the Holy Qur’ān that God is the Creator of the Heaven and the earth and all that is between
them. This view has no further deliberation and is taken as a dogmatic system of cosmogony and theology. Second
is the view that the world is brought into existence by the way of emanation of God instead of creation. This is the
view of neo-platonic and Aristotelian conception of the world. Third is based on the first view but it was broadened
by a metaphysical explanation, demonstrating not just the theory of the origination of the world but the continuous
re-creation of the world [21]. The Ash‘arites belongs to the third group.
In Ash‘arism and even in Islamic-Malay cosmology, posits that the nature of this physical world in which the
structure and the process of the cosmos include bodies, time, space and energy are discrete or discontinuous instead
of continuous [13, 22-24]. The world is being created from nothing into something (creatio ex nihilo) and the
creation process occurs at every instant of time by God. In other words, it is always in the state of being created and
annihilated. The perishing of things is called fanā’ and the perpetual process of renewal is called khalq jadīd.
Therefore, the world is ever new (muhdath) [5,13,25]. However, this continuous re-creation phenomena cannot be
grasped by our ordinary senses because the process is too brief and we are ourselves part of this process. Even
though it cannot be observed with our senses, it is accessible through intellectual reflection and spiritual experience,
i.e. trans-empirical consciousness which is a valid channel of acquiring knowledge in the worldview of Islam. This
atomistic cosmology which based on the Holy Qur‘ān [26,27] are the rational proof to stress the absolute
dependence of the world and everything in it on the power and the will of the Creator (al-Khāliq).
To explain the nature of this ever-perishing existence, the Ash‘arites scholars of the past assert that the world is
composed of atoms (jawāhir) and accidents (a‘rād) [28]. But God is neither atoms nor accidents. Therefore, we
define the world (al-‘ālam) as everything other than God [29,30], and this is so because the term al-‘ālam is derived
from al-‘ilm that is knowledge; and everything that is providing knowledge of God and providing evidence of Him
is an ‘ālam [12]. This atom is indivisible, self-subsistence and has no magnitude, for magnitude requires this atom to
become infinitely divisible [31]. In order to have bodies, these atoms will combine at least two atoms. All bodies are
composed of similar atoms and the difference of bodies is caused by their difference in accidents. Accidents which
give qualities to bodies, cannot endure for two successive moments; for it will perish upon coming into existence
and being continually replaced by a new accident. These accidents are superadded to the substance and inseparable
from all material things. There is no inherent nature in things because God creates a substance and simultaneously
its accidents. It will destroy after its creation and other similar or different accidents takes its place. This is the God’s
customary way of acting in creating and fashioning this world. Therefore, there is an unlimited possibility of
phenomena in the world. The absence of a property is itself a property that exists in the body. For example, rest is
real as motion. They also assert that the idea of the infinite is inadmissible for God has determined everything
according to His measures.

DISCUSSION
As we have seen, Aristotelian system has brought us into the idea of the eternity of the world. We reject this idea
under the basis that this physical world originates from nothing into something. If we go further, we also disagree
with the view that this world is originated but it has own laws namely the laws of nature. This is the view of
Descartes and Newton that has no room for miracles or extra phenomenal events to happen and everything can be
determined by mathematical formulation. In other words, to them, God is like a watchmaker, His role is confines
only to the creation of the universe and then let the universe operates according to their own laws like a vast
machine. This also relates to the discussion on the nature of causality where if we follow the principle of the laws of
nature, the connection between cause and effect must be necessary. We do not totally reject this principle but hold
onto much broader and comprehensive understanding of causality that being provided by Imām al-Ghazālī when he
refuted Ibn Sīnā on his views that will risk to adopt the idea of the eternity of the world in his treatise Tahāfut al-
falāsifa [32]. He rejected this view under consideration of miracles events happened in this physical world such as
fire cannot burn the human. For instance, if we place cotton near fire, we cannot say that the fire causes the cotton to
catch fire. Instead we should say that God creates the accidents of burning into fire and at the same time God
annihilate the whiteness and the other cotton properties and replace them by accidents of ash and blackness. In other
words, God creates everything in separate existence and He is the one made a relation to one thing with another. It
seems like their connection is necessary because of the limitation our senses. This a God’s customary way of acting,

166 to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject
202.184.124.14 On: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:12:24
 what we called sunnat Allāh. Thus, we have no such thing as a problem of whether the phenomenal events in this
world are determinism or indeterminism because we affirm both.
It is important to emphasize the view that the world is eternal because this conception is still flowing in the vein
of modern cosmology. Even though the form may differ but the premises and conclusion is still the same. For
example, the theory of the formation of the universe—big bounce theory which is the combination of the big bang
and big crunch theories ultimately creates the endless cycle of universe formation in which the universe expands
from the point of singularity until it collapses and this process repeated infinitely. Instead of the universe being
originated and eventually annihilated, the theory views that the universe is as same as the laws of conservation
energy i.e. it cannot be created nor destroyed but it only changes in another new cycle of the universe.
We also reject the idea of infinity on the issue of infinitely divisible particles because ultimately it will compel us
to the understanding that God has no role in this world and we affirm that God creates everything according to His
measures. Thus, everything is finite and has limits. On the question of the nature of reality, we observed that the
Copenhagen interpretation neglects the understanding of the nature of reality and the world because the omission of
metaphysics from physics. We maintain that the existence of the external world is real and independent of the mind.
In fact, existence itself has many levels and this physical world is one of the many levels of existence and this world
has a connection with the higher order of existence.
On the question of the importance to hold this atomistic conception of the physical world, we quote the saying of
Sa’d al-Dīn al-Taftazānī (d. 1390):

If the question is raised whether there is any benefit resulting from this position [of affirming the atomic
minimal part] which is different (from that of the Philosophers), we reply that there is. In establishing the
pure atom we escape many of the obscurities of the Philosophers, such as the positing of primary matter
(hayūlī) and form (sūrah) which leads to the eternity of the world, the denial of the resurrection of the body,
and many of the fundamental laws of measurement (al-handasah), upon which obscurities rests the continual
motion of the heavenly spheres; and also the denial of the rending (al-kharq) of them and their being
coalesced together again (al-ilti’ām) [33].

CONCLUSION

Even though some of the views are outdated and replaced by much newer concepts, theories and postulates, we
believe that their fundamental principles still exist and some of them will be reborn eventually because of the
‘absolute change’ framework. From the description of the three views of the physical world, we can see that their
principles, to some extent, do not conform to our worldview as far as the Ash‘arite conception of the physical world
is concerned. Therefore, we have pointed out where is our disagreement and what is our stand on that particular
problem. We maintain to stress that this conception must be understood by Muslim physicists whenever they need to
respond to the question about the place of religion in current knowledge i.e. modern science. In fact, it can be our
foundation or guiding principles to develop new ideas in theoretical physics and manifest it in a new research
program that more align to our worldview.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for financial support through UKM-GUP-2011-255
research grant.

REFERENCES

1. ATLAS collab; G. Aad et al., Phys. Lett. B 716, 1–29, (2012).

2. CMS collab; S. Chatrchyan et al, Phys. Lett. B 716, 30–61, (2012).
3. J. Allday, Quarks, Leptons and the Bing Bang, 2nd ed. Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing, 2002. p. 1.
4. M. Slezak, “New Particle, New Questions,” in NewScientist, vol. 215, no. 2873, 2012, pp. 6–9.
5. B. Pullman, The Atom in the History of Human Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. p. 31

167 to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject
202.184.124.14 On: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:12:24
 6. S. Pines, Studies in Islamic atomism. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1997.
7. U. Mishra, Conception Of Matter: According To Nyaya-Vaisesika. Bank Road: Allahabad, 1936.
8. Adi Setia, Islam & Science 5, 23–52 (2007).
9. L. Laudan, Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
10. S. M. N. Al-Attas, Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam: An Exposition of the Fundamental Elements of the Worldview
of Islam. Kuala Lumpur: International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation (ISTAC), 2001.
11. M. J. Adler, “The Great ideas: A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World” vol. 1 & 2. Encyclopædia Britannica,
Chicago, 1952.
12. Adi Setia, Islam & Science 2 (2), 161–180 (2004).
13. S. M. N. Al-Attas, Islam and the Philosophy of Science. Kuala Lumpur: International Institute of Islamic Thought and
Civilization (ISTAC), 1994.
14. L. Mlodinow and S. Hawking, The Grand Design. New York: The Random House Publishing Group, 2010.
15. R. F. Kitchener, “Introduction: The World View of Contemporary Physcis: Does it Need a New Metaphysics,” in The World
View of Contemporary Physics, edited by R. F. Kitchener, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988, pp. 3–24.
16. Zaidi Ismail, Islam & Science 6 (1), 31-53 (2008).
17. T. E. Huff, The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003.
18. E. Zilsel, The Philosophical Review 51, 245–279 (1942).
19. I. Newton, Opticks: or, a Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections, and Colours of Light. London, 1721.
20. I. Newton, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, vol. 2. London: Daniel Adee, 1803.
21. Hamid Fahmy Zarkasyi, Al-Ghazālī’s Concept of Causality: with reference to his interpretations of reality and knowledge.
Kuala Lumpur: IIUM Press, 2010.
22. Adi Setia, Islam & Science 6 (1), 13–29 (2008).
23. M. Maimonides, The guide of the perplexed, translated by S. Pines, and L. Strauss, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1963.
24. S. M. N. Al-Attas, A Commentary on the hujjat al-Siddīq of Nūr al-Dīn al-Rānīrī. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Culture, 1986.
25. D. B. MacDonald, The History of Science Society (9), 326–344 (1927).
26. S. M. N. Al-Attas, The Degrees of Existence. Kuala Lumpur: International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization
(ISTAC), 1996.
27. Osman Bakar, The history and philosophy of Islamic science. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1999.
28. S. M. N. Al-Attas, The Oldest Known Malay Manuscript: A 16th Century Malay Translation of the “Aqā”id al-Nasafi. Kuala
Lumpur: Department of Publications University of Malaya, 1988.
29. M. Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
30. A. Q. al-Baghdādī, Uṣ ūl al-Dīn. Istanbul, 1928.
31. Adi Setia, Islam & Science, 4 (2), 113–140, (2006).
32. Al-Ghazza li , The incoherence of the philosophers Taha fut al-fala sifah: a parallel English-Arabic text, 2nd ed.,
translated by M.E. Marmura, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2000.
33. Sa’d al-Dīn Mas u d ibn Umar and Elder, A commentary on the Creed of Islam: Sa d al-Di n al-Tafta za ni on the
creed of Najm al-Di n al-Nasafí, vol. XLIII, translated by E.E. Elder, New York: Columbia University Press, 1950.

168 to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject
202.184.124.14 On: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:12:24
View publication stats