If the Quran says that there are only four steps, then why do we do more?
wikiHow Contributor
It's sunnah to do these steps. The four steps in the Holy Quran are the obligatory steps (the steps we have to do for wudu).


Sūrat al-Bayyinah (Arabic: سورة البينة‎‎, "The Clear Proof, Evidence") is the 98th sura of the Qur'an with 8 ayat. The Surah is so designated after the word al-bayyinah occurring at the end of the first verse.


This is the 98th Surat, by no coincidence composed of 98 words, with both structural and thematic symmetries more characteristic of the Meccan period. The central chiasm is precisely positioned in the 5th verse "religion [of Abraham], upholding prayers and giving alms, that is true religion" this in turn is flanked by concentric looping themes in an A B C | C' B' A' pattern where A' responds to A, B' responds to B and C' responds to C. As an example of this structure, verse 2 stating "A Messenger from Allah reciting purified scriptures" is answered by verse 7 "Indeed, they who have believed and done righteous deeds — those are the best of all creatures."


What makes me even more skeptical is that the only character in 666 that could even be slightly connected to the name of Allah is the middle one. The other two characters of 666 -- Chi and Stigma -- are not represented at the Arabic for Allah at all, nor are they anywhere in the word "bismallah." Shoebat has tried substituting the CHI and the STIGMA with other Arabic symbols, like crossed swords and a random scimitar, but those are cherry-picked.


Let's look at the Greek. The number 666 is actually 600, 60, 6, or Chi, Xi, Stigma.




The Bedouin were introduced to Meccan ritualistic practices as they frequented settled towns of the Hejaz during the four months of the "holy truce", the first three of which were devoted to religious observance, while the fourth was set aside for trade.[110] Alan Jones infers from Bedouin poetry that the gods, even Allah, were less important to the Bedouins than Fate.[111] They seem to have had little trust in rituals and pilgrimages as means of propitiating Fate, but had recourse to divination and soothsayers (kahins).[111] The Bedouins regarded some trees, wells, caves and stones as sacred objects, either as fetishes or as means of reaching a deity.[112] They created sanctuaries where people could worship fetishes.[113]


This niche in the vicinity of the Urn tomb contains a row of four baetyls ("god blocks") for worship, Petra, Jordan ( Wikimedia Commons )


Sama ceremonies are broken up into four parts which all have their own meanings.


Naat and Taksim – Naat is the beginning of the ceremony where a solo singer offers praise for the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The first part is finished with taksim (improvisation in free rhythm) of the ney reed flute which symbolises our separation from God.


Devr-i Veled – During the following Devr-i Veled, the dervishes bow to each other and make a stately procession in single file around the hall. The bow is said to represent the acknowledgement of the Divine breath which has been breathed into all of us. After all the dervishes have done this they kneel and remove their black cloaks.


The Four Salams – The Four Salams are the central part of Sama. The samazens or whirling dervishes are representative of the moon and they spin on the outside (sufi whirling) of the Sheikh who is representative of the sun. They, as previously mentioned, spin on their left foot and additionally, they have their right palm facing upwards towards Heaven and their left hand pointing at the ground. The four salams themselves are representative of the spiritual journey that every believer goes through. The first one is representative of recognition of God, the second one is recognition of the existence in his unity, the third one represents the ecstasy one experiences with total surrender and the fourth one, where the Sheikh joins in the dance, is symbolic of peace of the heart due to Divine unity. After the four salams, this part of the ceremony is concluded with another solo Taksim.


Concluding Prayer – The fourth part of the ceremony is a recitation from the Qu'ran and a prayer by the Sheikh and then the Sama is complete.[6][7]


In Lezginka, the man holds his arms spread in a cruciform position to symbolize the rising and setting sun. His bent arm with the hand pressed to his chest, the other arm outstretched to the side designates The Sun in its movement.**


A salbut is a crucifix, a musallab is an intersection of two roads and Hurub al–Salib, or 'Wars of the Cross', is the Arabic term for the Crusades.

at around 50 seconds he talks abiut how art hostorians and ancient architects and architects see the eight octagon as fourfold

as the four superimposed on the four as the divine four on top on the earthly four and how the dome of the rock and otger structures employ this fourness 


he also mentions how the 8 is seen as 7 plus one. 7 plus one is the three plus one of the second quadrant the same thing


Muhammad's choice of "crucifixion", as a form of punishment in the Qur'an [Surah 5:33] for "those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger" is intriguing. Muhammad threatened his opponents with crucifixion – the same punishment which Muhammad claims the wicked Pharaoh used! Muhammad knew what a cross was, in fact, he hated crosses so much that he destroyed anything that he saw depicting a geometric cross. There is no record of Muhammad displaying such hostility to stakes or poles.


According to a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari:


... So the companions of the cross will go with their cross, and the idolators (will go) with their idols, and the companions of every god (false deities) (will go) with their god, till there remain those who used to worship Allah, both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, and some of the people of the Scripture. ...


Did the Egyptians use crucifixion?

July 21st, 2012 Ibn Anwar


Does the Qur’an commit an anachronism when it says there was ‘crucifixion’ in the Egyptian civilisation?


by Ibn Anwar, BHsc. (Hons.), MCollT


Today I had a dialogue with a Christian that goes by the name ‘kevangreen’ on Paltalk who was recycling a common objection raised against the Qur’an by Christian missionaries namely that it says that the ancient Egyptians practised crucifixion. The relevant verses are as follows:


Said [Pharaoh]: “Have you come to believe in him ere I have given you permission? Verily, he must be your master who has taught you magic! But in time you shall come to know [my revenge]: most certainly shall I cut off your hands and your feet in great numbers, because of [your] perverseness, and shall most certainly crucify you in great numbers, all together!” (26:49)


Said [Pharaoh]: “Have you come to believe in him ere I have given you permission? Verily, he must be your master who has taught you magic! But I shall most certainly cut off your hands and feet in great numbers, because of [your] perverseness, and I shall most certainly crucify you in great numbers on trunks of palm-trees: and [I shall do this] so that you might come to know for certain as to which of us [two] can inflict a more severe chastisement, and [which] is the more abiding!” (20:71)


The Christian missionary posits the claim that the Egyptians did not have crucifixion as a method of punishment or execution. Thus their contention is that the Qur’an is grossly misrepresenting history. Did the Egyptians practice crucifixion or do we see here an example of an anachronistic information in the Qur’an?


Steve Bates writes:


“In other nations of the ancient world crucifixion was the main form of execution, and thousands of criminals were crucified. Criminals were crucified in Egypt, and Alexander the Great, after a seven month siege to conquer Tyre, ordered two thousand Tyrians to be crucified as punishment for their resistance.” [1] (bold and underline emphasis added)



Prebendary of Saint Paul’s and scholar at Saint John’s College, Cambridge, Thomas Hartwell Horne writes:


“Crucifixion obtained among several ancient nations, the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, and Carthaginians.” [2] (emphasis added)


What is even more interesting is that Horne mentions the Qur’anic verse cited above where Pharoah demanded the crucifixion of his enemies in the footnote section and yet saying nowhere that the Qur’an commits an anachronism there.


Assoc. Professor of New Testament and Archeology, Covenant Theological Seminary in Saint Louis, David Chapman writes:


“Studies often associate the inception of crucifixion in antiquity with the Persians; and indeed sources frequently testify to acts of suspension under Persian rule. However, it should be noted that: (1) This testimony is largely found in later Greek and Latin sources (thus stemming from a Hellenistic viewpoint of history), (2) as remarked in chapter one, the terminology employed by these sources is rarely sufficient in itself definitively to determine that “crucifixion” was employed as opposed some other form of suspension, and (3) other ancient peoples in Europe, Egypt, and Asia were said to crucify as well.” [3] (bold and underline emphasis added)


Noted Christian scholar and interpreter of the New Testament, William Barclay writes:


“The custom of crucifixion was widespread. We find it in Egypt, Phoenicia, Carthage, Persia, Assyria, Scythia and even India;” [4]


Markus Adams writes:


“Crucifixion was really nothing new. Some historians believe that it dates back to ancient Egypt and Assyria.” [5]


According to the above non-Muslim scholars crucifixion did exist as a form of penalty in the time of Egypt. So much for the usual faulty charge of anachronism levelled against the noble Qur’an.




Typically, whenever Christians speak of the crucifixion or refer to it what they have in mind is the cross that has the the patibulum and stipes fixed together in an upright and horizontal fashion as the following image shows:




The vertical bar of wood is called the patibulum and the horizontal post is called the stipes. Together, they create the general impression that Christians have of what a crucifixion looks like:


cross 2


We must remember however, that the term crucifixion is rather recent. It comes from the Late Latin ‘crucifixionem’ which stems from ‘crucifigere’. The original term used in New Testament literature such as the gospels is certainly not crucifixion but the Greek σταυρός (stauros) and its derivatives. Undoubtedly, ‘stauros’ that is translated as ‘crucifixion’ has in general come to refer to the images above, but is the mainstream Christian depiction or imagination the only correct meaning that may be associated with the term ‘stauros’? Is the patibulum that is affixed to the stipes exclusively the definition of ‘stauros’?


According to authoritative Greek lexicons, ‘stauros’ is essentially a pole or an upright stake placed to the ground that is used as a method of execution:


Danker and Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon on ‘Stauros’:


“a pole to be placed to the ground and used for capital punishment…a stake sunk in the ground in an upright position…” [6]


Thayer’s Greek lexicon concurs with the above definition:

“1. an upright stake, esp. a pointed one…” [7]


According to the above two major Greek-English lexicons, crucifixion may not necessarily refer to the typical Christian depiction but that it is essentially a wooden stake or a pole that is fixed to the ground in an upright manner. In simple terms, we may call this ‘impalement’ which means to fix or put someone on an upright stake that is placed to the ground and the Greek-English lexicon by Liddell and Scott is rather explicitly clear on this:


“σταυρός, ύ, an upright pale or stake, σταυρονς έκτός ελασσε διαμπερες ενθα καί ενθα πυκνους καί θαμέας Od. 14. II, cf. II. 24. 453, Thuc. 4. 90, Xen. An. 5. 2, 22;” [8] (emphasis added)


We do not disagree that the typical Christian depiction is indeed ‘stauros’ but the basic meaning of the term does not have to be that according to the lexicons. In reality, ‘stauros’ can refer to simply one slab of stake or sharpened wood that is placed upright to the ground which we simply refer to as impalement as seen in the following image:




But it does not even have to be an upright sharp stake that the victim is impaled upon according to the lexicons. It can just be a pole to which the victim is affixed such as the following:




In short, ‘stauros’ or crucifixion may refer to a variety of upright slabs of wood with various ways of affixing the victim, but in essence, it has to be one that is placed upright upon the ground.


The two Qur’anic verses cited at the beginning of the article refer to an incident that occurred in Pharoah’s court at the time of Moses. The missionary argument is that there is no historical proof of crucifixion being practised at the time, but as we have seen prior to the addendum, historians clearly disagree and concur with Islamic sources that Egyptians did use crucifixion. But a pertinent question may arise: “Egypt was a civilisation of thousands of years and so, did crucifixion exist in the time of ancient Egypt when Moses was around or did it come later?”


According to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which is supposed to be Moses’ book, the Jews themselves practised crucifixion at the time and so, this method did indeed exist during Moses’ dispensation in ancient Egypt. This fact is mentioned by Alicia Craig Faxon:


“As a form of punishment, crucifixion was widespread in ancient Assyria, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Carthage, and Macedonia as well as in Rome. Deuteronomy 21:22-23 contains these instructions:


And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.


This passage suggests that Jews of biblical times also punished by hanging on a tree, or a form of crucifixion.” [9]


Notice that the Deuteronomic penal law above is a double-fold punishment, i.e., the victim is first physically punished or executed after which he is hanged on the tree and this seems to mirror the method of punishment that Pharaoh, according to the Qur’an, threatened his magicians with once they declared belief in Moses’ prophethood — that their limbs would be severed after which they would be fixed upon trunks of palm-trees. And so, we see a clear convergence between the biblical Deuteronomic description of crucifixion and the one in the Qur’an. For the missionary to disclaim the latter as ahistorical they would have to equally disclaim the former.


Indeed, a plain reading of Deuteronomy 21:22-23 shows that the crucifixion is only of the corpse after the person had been executed by other means but even so, one may venture to exegete the verse in an alternative way as saying that the victim’s death may actually occur on the cross itself, i.e., his death is caused by the crucifixion whilst affixed to the ‘stauros’ and not by other means prior to it. The first notable person to interpret it in that manner was none other than Paul of Tarsus. In Galatians 3:13, he teaches that “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” (King James Bible) The last portion of the verse — “for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” — is clearly a reference to Deuteronomy 21:23 and this is agreed upon by most commentators of the Bible. By applying it to Jesus’ crucifixion, Paul is inadvertently teaching that the Deuteronomic law of crucifixion may be understood as a method of executing someone on the upright stake or ‘stauros’ itself and not just a means of dangling a person upon it post-mortem, because according to the New Testament narrative, Jesus was not killed prior to being crucified but that his death occurred on the cross as he was crucified. This significant point is noted by Professor Emeritus of Sacred Scripture at the Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy Martin McNamara who cites Catholic priest and Hebraist Alejandro Diez Macho as saying “that Paul’s application of Deut 21:23 to the crucifixion of Christ was probably because in Paul’s day “to hang on a tree” meant the same as “to be crucified”. [10]


Whether we go by the plain reading of the text or by Paul’s interpretation, the Christian should not have any qualms against the understanding or interpretation that Deuteronomy 21:22-23 instructs crucifixion since Paul himself quoted the penal law specifically to refer to crucifixion.


Is the case closed? Not just yet. The missionary’s claim is further weakened if not completely shattered by the very fact that according to the first book of their most beloved Bible, crucifixion existed in ancient Egypt even before Moses’ time in Pharaoh’s kingdom. Many years before Moses was born, crucifixion was a readily available method of punishment at Pharaoh’s disposal in the time of Joseph.


In Genesis 40:19, Joseph helped to interpret Pharaoh’s chief baker’s dream that “Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and impale your body on a pole. And the birds will eat away your flesh.” After three days, Joseph’s interpretation came to pass just as he had said it:


“But Pharaoh impaled the chief baker, just as Joseph had predicted when he interpreted his dream.” (Genesis 40:22)


As per the standard meaning of ‘stauros’ or crucifixion gleaned from authoritative lexicons that we went through above, impalement is a form of crucifixion and this is precisely what is understood by the prominent lexicographer Sir William Smith:


“CRUCIFIXION (σταυρουν, άνασταυρουν, σκολοπίςειν, προσηλουν (and, less properly, άνασκινδυλεύειν): cruci or patibulo affigere, suffigere, or simply figere (Tert. de Pat. iii.), cruciare (Auson.), ad palum alligare, crucem alicui statuere, in crucem agere, tollere, &c.: the sufferer was called cruciarius). The variety of the phrases shows the extreme commonness of the punishment, the invention of which is traditionally ascribed to Semiramis. It was in use among the Egyptians (as in the case of Inarus, Thuc. i. 30; Gen. xl. 19), the Carthaginians (as in the case of Hanno, &c., Val. Max. ii. 7; Sil. Ital. ii. 344), the Persians (Polycrates, &c., Herod. iii. 125, iv. 43; Esth. vii. 10, σταυρωθήτω έπ αύτό, LXX. v. 14), the Assyrians (Diod. Sic. ii. 1), Scythians (id. ii. 44), Indians (id. ii. 18), (Winer, s. v. Kreuzigung,) Germans (possibly, Tac. Germ. 12), and very frequent from the earliest times (reste suspendito, Liv. i. 26) among the Greeks and Romans.” [11] (emphasis added)


His list of nations that practised crucifixion seems to have great resemblance to William Barclay’s. It is quite possible that Barclay based his statement on Smith’s work, but be that as it may, both Barclay and Smith agree that crucifixion existed in Egypt and Smith specifically identifies Gen. xl. 19 or Genesis 40:19 as his reference.


Smith is not alone in seeing Genesis 40:19 as an example of crucifixion in ancient Egypt. He is joined by a very prominent Jewish historian that lived about 1900 years before him. One of the greatest Jewish historians, Titus Flavius Josephus or Joseph ben Matityahu understood Genesis 40:19 as referring to a mode of crucifixion:


“Joseph’s interpretation of the dream is that “within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head — from you! — and hang you on a pole; and the birds will eat the flesh from you” (Gen 40:19). Josephus says that “He (Joseph) told him that the baskets meant three days, and that one the third day he would be crucified and devoured by birds, being unable to defend himself.” [12]


In a footnote to the above, the author David Tombs, who is the Howard Paterson Professor of Theology and Public Issues, and Director of the Centre for Theology and Public Issues at the University of Otago, writes:


“Josephus Ant. 2. 72. Since Josephus is writing for a Roman audience it is not surprising that he refers to this hanging or impalement as “crucifixion.” [13]


And so, Josephus in writing about Genesis 40:19 wanted his audience to see it as an example of crucifixion in ancient Egypt in Joseph’s time.


In discussing the significance of the cross, avid Christian believer, the late Dr. Ray H. Hughes Sr., former general overseer of the Church of God and past president of Lee University, also sees Genesis 40:19 as an example of crucifixion in ancient Egypt before Moses’ time that was practised in Pharaoh’s court:


“The Word gives a record of the crucifixion of the baker of Pharaoh in the Book of Genesis (see 40:19,22).” [14]


In Targum Neofiti, which is a voluminous work that translates the Torah into Aramaic, the phrase “hang you on a tree” in Genesis 40:19 is translated into Aramaic as “they shall crucify you on a cross”. This is mentioned by Diez Macho as cited by McNamara:


“He notes that in Neof. Gen 40:19; 41:13, the phrase “they shall hang you on a tree” of the Hebrew text is rendered into Aramaic as “they shall crucify you on a cross”.” [15]


According to Diez Macho, the Neofiti is from the first century CE but there is actually no certainty for this dating. In any case, it is certainly a rather early record showing that besides Josephus, Jews have long understood Genesis 40:19, 22 as crucifixion in ancient Egypt that existed even before Moses.


The term used for impalement in Genesis 40:19,22 and also in Deuteronomy 21:23 is ותלה or ‘tzalav’ and in Hebrew, according to Wilhelm Gesenius and other authorities of Hebrew, it does mean “to crucify”. Professor of Biblical Literature in Judeao Christian Studies at the Graduate Department of Oral Roberts University, Bradford Young writes:


“Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the word tzalav, which certainly has the meaning of “to crucify” as well as “to hang,” is used to describe the fate of Pharaoh’s baker (see also Targum Deut. 21:22-23, Targum Esther 6:4, 5:14, 9:14, 9:25, 10:26, Targum Joshua 8:29, 10:26).” [16]


In the foregoing addendum, it has become crystal clear that the crucifixion not only existed in Moses’ time but even before that. There is absolutely no reason for the Christian missionary to reject or question the validity of the Qur’anic narrative as it is clearly backed by biblical evidence.


Salaam Alaikum. I have a question about 20:71 in the Quran, where Pharaoh said he will crucify his men who believed in Moses, on the trunks of palm trees. Did Pharaoh nail them to the trees, or impale them? How did Muslim scholars interpret this verse? Many thanks.



All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad , is His slave and Messenger.


Some Tafseer scholars said that Pharaoh executed his threat to them; he cut off their hands and their feet and crucified them and they died believing. Ibn ‘Abbaas may Allaah be pleased with him said: “At the beginning of the day, they were magicians, and at the end of the day, they were honorable martyrs.” At-Tabari reported this in his Tafseer, and Qataadah and as-Suddi said the same.


Ash-Shirbeeni reported a difference of opinion about this in As-Siraaj Al-Muneer fi Al-I’aanah ‘ala Ma’rifat Ba‘dh Ma’aani Kalaam Rabbina Al-Hakeem al-Khabeer (1/503), saying: "Ibn Abbaas said: “At the beginning of the day, they were magicians, and at the end of the day, they were martyrs.” At-Teebi said: “Pharaoh severed their hands and feet and crucified them. Others said, he did not overpower them, as Allaah says (what means): {[It will be] through Our signs; you and those who follow you will be the dominant."} [Quran 28:35]." [End of quote]


Allaah Knows best.


In this regard Shah Wali Allah divides human historv into four

phases of development, not separated from one another but mingled w ith.

These four phases: nomad, civilised town, city state and universal state

present the four successive periods of the continuous rise of human

society. Among them Shah Wali Allah points out three periods of

ignorance, mainly portraying the decline of religion. The fourth is

presented as future development. Shah Wali Allah in this regard analyses

the "whole period of history'’ 1 ' under his concept oflrtifaqat.




Shah Wali Allah discusses development of human society under the

caption oflrtifaqat and analyses in this way the whole period of historv in

regard to man's achievements. He divides the four phases of human

development into four Irtifaqat. The word Irtifaqat" is of great


To Shall Wali Allah Adalah (justice) is necessary for the

hormonious development of human society. It means justice or balance

(Tawazun). Shah Wali Allah has discussed this feature in Hujjat under

four principal qualities for the acquisition ot "Sa adah (satisfaction or

happiness); Taharah (chastity), Aklibat (to be humble before God).

Samahah (magnanimity), Adalah (justice or balance) 2 ^ and also as a

religious obligation. He believes that in all methods and practices adalah

or tawazun should be maintained and man should not indulge in

extremism in any way. To him adalah in ever\ field of life can bring

humanity to the height of its development. Man gets all his systems and

structured facilities through adalah. "When it expresses itself in dress,

manners and mores, it goes by the name of adah (etiquettes). In matters

relating to income and expenditure we call it economy, and in the at fails

of state it is named politics . 2b


The pattern is the same as Spengler's division of

civilisation into four cyclic phases based on the seasons. Ibn Khaldun too.

divides the phases of development of the state on the pattern of man's:

childhood, adolescence, manhood and maturity.


Four types of intelligible forms in themselves are distinguished: those of the bodies that have an eternal circular motion; those of the agent and acquired intellects (the acquired intellect being the highest level of the human intellect, which results from conjunction with the agent intellect); those of the material world, which are stripped by the external senses from external particular things; and those in the internal senses. The first are in all respects immaterial, that is, lacking any necessary relation to matter. The second are in themselves immaterial; they have only an inessential relation to matter, the agent intellect by virtue of causing the material forms and the acquired intellect by virtue of completing them. The third are essentially linked to matter; they exist in matter and are made intelligible only through the mediation of the external senses. The fourth lie between the second and the third and are therefore in part material and in part not. Since, to Ibn Bajja, immateriality necessitates universality and materiality necessitates particularity, the following conclusion is drawn: the first, second and, in part, fourth types of intelligible forms are universal, while the third and, in part, fourth are particular.


Since a distinguishing feature of philosophy is the use of the apodictic syllogism (burhân) (the only one that yields certain knowledge), not all syllogistic sciences can be considered parts of philosophy. Avempace enumerates four such non-philosophical arts: Dialectic relies only on opinion and negates or asserts something through methods of general acceptance. Sophistry aims at beings insofar as it misrepresents them and deceives us: it makes the false look true, and the true, false. And following the tradition initiated by the Greek commentators on Aristotle, Avempace includes Rhetoric and Poetics in logic (Ibn Bâjja 1994, pp. 28–29). These four arts use other kinds of syllogism but only to convince another, not to infer the truth, whereas philosophy causes man to convince another and to infer the truth for himself.[10]


Avempace comments on his words but when he comes to “in all the syllogistic arts”, he moves to another treatise of Alfarabi (Dunlop 1957b, Risâlah, Arabic, pp. 225–225, English transl. 230–231), and seizes the opportunity to expound on their common classification of the syllogistic arts. There are five: “philosophy and the [four] arts”. The four arts are dialectic, sophistic, rhetoric, and poetry. He uses Alfarabi's words and explains what makes them syllogistic: “It is in the nature of the syllogistic arts to be employed [for their own sake] once they are assembled and completed, and not to have an action as their end”.[9]


The biographical sources are informed by Avempace's expertise as a musician and as a composer of muwashshaḥa poetry. In addition, he has left us a brief composition on the melodies.[14] Avempace expounds on the therapeutic effect of playing the ‛ûd, lute, on the basis of universal harmony existing between the heavenly spheres and the bodily nature, the humors. Each chord of the lute is related to one of the four elements: fire, air, earth, water, and each chord has a beneficial influence on each disease caused by one of the humors. The chord called zîr acts on the bile, the chord mathnà on the blood, the chord mathlath, on the black bile, and the chord bamm, on the phlegm. Avempace instructs the player how to place the lute on his body and which finger plays which chord. If the musician plays the lute in the right way, his day will be most beautiful.


Aristotle, according to Avempace, classified the science of animals into four sections: 1) properties of the sensible parts of animals, 2) properties of their limbs, 3) properties of their homogeneous sensible parts, and 4) properties of their non-homogeneous sensible parts (Ibn Bâjja 2002a, Ḥayawân, p. 76).


These four persons have had this title:


Aga Khan I – Hasan Ali Shah Mehalatee (1800–1881), 46th Imam of Nizari Ismailis (1817–1881)

Aga Khan II – Ali Shah (about 1830–1885), 47th Imam of Nizari Ismailis (April 12, 1881 – August 1885)

Aga Khan III – Sir Sultan Mohammed Shah (1877–1957), 48th Imam of Nizari Ismailis (August 17, 1885 – July 11, 1957)

Aga Khan IV – Prince Shah Karim Al Husseini (b. 1936), 49th Imam of Nizari Ismailis (July 11, 1957 – present)