“Thick Description: Towards an Interpretative Theory of Culture” – Clifford Geertz
Clifford Geertz, one of the most influential cultural anthropologists in the U.S., applies his knowledge and anthropological foundation to science and the nature of evidence. I found this reading quite challenging to follow as it was dense, detailed and used relatively complex language. Ultimately, there were two main points I got from this reading:
First, Geertz emphasizes ethnography as the crucial method of anthropological analysis, allowing for the development of theories and large-scale ideologies. From one point of view, ethnography is “establishing rapport, selecting informants, transcribing texts, taking genealogies, mapping fields, keeping a diary, etc”. From Geertz’s point of view, ethnography lies in “thick description”. Borrowed from Gilbert Ryle, Geertz defines thick description as the meaningful structures behind what is being observed. Anthropological research also heavily relies on the interpretations of the ethnographer and how they perceive the culture of others, because “understanding a people’s culture exposes their normlessness without reducing their particularity” (pg. 14). Essentially, anthropological writings are interpretations and Geertz believes the best ethnographies are those full of “thick descriptions” that “take us into the heart of that of which it is the interpretation” (pg.18).
Ethnographic studies are typically conducted on very small scale – focusing on a single group of people in a small village or neighborhood. This is the problem that surrounds Geertz’s second point. There exists a methodological issue involving the microscopic nature of ethnographic research. Geertz denounces the “Jonesville-Is-America writ small” and the “natural laboratory” and instead believes that the important part of ethnographic findings is their complex specificness and realness. This allows for previously discovered facts to be mobilized, previously developed concepts to be used, and previously formulated hypotheses to be tried. In other words, the material produced by long-term, qualitative, highly participative studies allow anthropologists to build upon previous research and develop larger-scale theories about human nature. With this, “the aim is to draw large conclusions from small, but very densely textured facts to support broad assertions about the role of culture in the construction of collective life by engaging them exactly with complex specifics” (pg. 28).
“Does Submission to God’s Will Prevent Biotechnological Intervention?” – Sherine F. Hamdy
Hamdy’s ethnographic account delves into the ethics and and opinions surrounding organ transplantation in Egypt among religious leaders, physicians, and patients. Kidney transplants have been conducted for over thirty years in Egypt, even in the absence of any legal framework or a national organ donation program. Because of this, patients resort to purchasing organs on the black market or receiving live donations from friends or family. Despite the fact that almost all religious scholars, Muslim and Coptic Christian, have declared that organ donation is permissible, many patients with religious convictions struggle with the ethics behind the practice. Hamdy primarily reveals this struggle through interviews with two dialysis patients, Muhammad and Ali, both of whom would benefit greatly from a kidney transplant but refuse to undergo the procedure. These patients did not believe that their religion prevents them from seeking beneficial treatment. Alternatively, they would rather die, ultimately meeting God, than be responsible for causing a family member harm (from the donation procedure) or be responsible for putting their family in debt (from purchasing an organ).
Hamdy’s primary argument is that “religious sentiments, should not be seen as passive, as anti-science, or as constraints to medical treatment” (pg. 156). Patients around the world learn to balance how to achieve the greatest benefit for themselves and their families, while simultaneously conforming to God’s will. This opposes the common perception that religious fatalism, or the notion that humans can exert little or no control over their own destinies, obstructs people from pursuing biotechnological intervention. In response to this, Hamdy says:
“To assume that religious practitioners refuse particular technologies or medical interventions because of their fatalism carries the dangers of missing the contingencies that inform when and under what conditions patients work to achieve this disposition.” (pg. 156)
It is important to understand all of the factors that play into a patient’s decisions on whether or not to undergo medical intervention. This can be extremely complex and highly variable, depending on the patient’s changing circumstances. Before a decision is made, patients must calculate their ethical disposition towards a particular treatment and assess its benefit and harms, while incorporating their understanding of the disease etiology and their specific experiences of the illness. The key idea here is that these conditions are not separate form, nor do they determine, the patient’s disposition towards divine will.
About the Author: Sherine F. Hamdy is an anthropologist who focuses on medical anthropology and science and technology in the Middle East. This paper seems to be written for an academic audience, but I think it could easily be read and understood by the general public.
My Thoughts
As an anthropology major, I have read a number of ethnographies on various topics, but I have never considered regarding them in the way that Clifford Geertz suggests. I often get lost in the specifics of the ethnographer’s research, losing the connection to the bigger picture. With Geertz’s ideas in mind, I read Hamdy’s article with a totally new perspective. The dichotomy between religious beliefs and modern medicine extends way beyond organ transplantation in Egypt but without Hamdy’s research on the specific troubles of Muslims in kidney failure, I would miss insights on how religion plays a positive role in medicine for some patients. Ultimately, understanding how religious tradition fits into a patient’s life can help our comprehension of ethical formations in devout patients’ lives (Hamdy, 157). Without small-scale ethnographies that are full of “thick description”, we would not gain the essential insight necessary to better this understanding.
First, I agree with Grace’s opinion that the Geertz piece was difficult to read. I found myself rereading paragraphs trying to grasp exactly what Clifford Geertz was trying to convey throughout the article. I also agree with the point that was discussed about ethnography being a “crucial method of anthropological analysis.” In another class, we discussed how culture influences the way in which societies function. Without a basic understanding of the differences within each individual ethnography, studying other socities would prove to be extremely difficult.
I thought Sherine F. Hamdy’s article was a much easier read, and it sparked a lot of questions. Religion helps to formulate conceptions of general order of existence. Science can also function like religion because it also makes order and creates understanding of things. I have trouble understanding why science is still so often neglected in religious beliefs, when the two are very similar in their ideologies?
I don’t understand your last sentence. Please clarify
Although the Geertz reading was dense, I found his reasons for valuing ethnography very intriguing. I thought his take was interesting because it emphasized the value in small samples while typically researchers try to gather as much data as possible to make a larger, overarching claim. I’m still not sure that I completely understood his argument, but I also found the statement, “the aim of anthropology is the enlargement of the universe of human discourse” (14) to be interesting. It feels like he’s arguing that if people were to be in closer contact with one another and share experiences we would have a deeper knowledge of human nature. I found this to be both challenging and inspiring.
I agree with your take on the Hamdy reading. This is one of my first encounter with the intersection between religion and science. I think Hamdy brings up extremely useful points because in the United States religion is often seen as a barrier to medical treatment rather than a valid and integral part of a patient’s life.
I agree with Grace’s comment about the complexity of undergoing medical procedures, and I felt that the purpose of the entire Mohammed and Ali narrative was to expose the difficulty for some people to make a decision when they have strong ties to religion. I also liked Grace’s idea about religion being “positive in the medical world.” Personally, I never thought religion was positive or negative in the medical world; instead, I just thought it was another factor in life that gave rose to conflict for patients undergoing risky procedures. I believe patients get caught up about what “God’s Will” really is, and I honestly believe it’s up for personal interpretation. Is God’s will “let what happens to your body happen to your body” or is it “do what you need to do to preserve the body that God has blessed you with”?
There’s an old story about a man drowning in water begging God to save him. A boat passes, a fisherman passes, and even a dolphin passes to help him. The drowning man refused all help, apparently waiting for something divine and miraculous to save him. When he died he went to heaven and asked God why he didn’t save him and god told him he that sent him 3 means of savior, and it was his own fault for not taking advantage of what God gave him. This, in my eyes, is a short little anecdote that encompasses my perspective of religion and its conflict in biotechnological intervention.
Perhaps now after reading Geertz piece, similarly to Grace, I can better understand why certain nations/cultural groups have more or less difficulty accepting biotechnological interventions. It seems like western culture is more secular and open to new advancements while older, highly religious cultures tend to be skeptical about it. We could not understand why this polarization is seen without clear understanding of the cultures, which is precisely what ethnography and thick description try to accomplish.
Overall I think this is very well written and I enjoyed how you connected both of the articles together, using the Geertz piece to aid in your analysis for the Hamdy piece.
Starting with Geertz’s article, I found this article to be complex and difficult to read. I agree with his views on ethnography to collect anthropological data. In my anthropology 202 course, we discussed an article by Bronislaw Malinowski titled Argonauts of the Western Pacific. This article shared similar approaches to ethnography such as keeping detailed diaries and creating close relationships with people being studied. Unlike Geertz’s article, Hamdy’s article was straightforward and easy to read. I think you did a great job summing up the main points in the article. I believe there exist a misconception about people that deny medical help due to religious beliefs. This can be seen from Hamdy’s example of Muhammad, Ali, and from his main argument. Also, you stated that Hamdy’s primary argument was “religious sentiments, should not be seen as passive, as anti-science, or as constraints to medical treatment” (pg. 156). While I do believe this is true, I think this is a simplified version of his article. At the start of the article Hamdy stated, “I argue against the dominant narrative: that religious fatalism obstructs people from pursuing biotechnological intervention. This dominant narrative is an offshoot of the powerful myth that religion always opposes scientific and technological progress. I argue instead that people’s understandings of religion and biomedical efficacy are often inextricably enmeshed and together factor into their cost-benefit calculations about medical intervention (pg. 144).” I think this is a more specific summary of his argument.
A quote is not a summary. What do you think this means?
I agree that Geertz’s view on ethnography provides a broader perspective when reading Stolow’s illustration on the Islamic religion and how people of the religion view biotechnology; or in some sense, it is easier to understand what Geertz is saying after reading “Deus in Machina.” Stolow indeed provides a “thick description,” digging deep into individual cases/ small matters to reveal substantial meanings associated with the Islamic culture itself. For “culture is located in the minds and hearts of men,” anthropology observation is to suggest the meaning of social actions, or in other words, “translate” the reason behind the forms of interaction.
In “Deus in Machina,” as you have summarized very succinctly, Stolow looks into the so -called “fatalistic belief” and attributed to “passive cultivation of steadfastness” and ” active manipulation to placate disadvantages.” We could see that religion is intertwined with many other factors, such as medical knowledge and socioeconomic backgrounds, when making a personal decision, of which a cumulation ultimately shapes a unique culture.
In the description “the Birth of Modern Turkey” by Delaney, we could see a even more crucial role of religion when establishing a country. The gender roles are defined in the Islamic religion, thus defining kinship within a family as well as a country. It is the small aspects of religion that converges the divine and nature, seemingly naturalizing power to certain groups of people or different factors, a similar effect to what we see in the biotechnology case but on a broader scale.
Overall, the readings well-compensate each other, providing microscopic views on how religion along with many other factors, shapes people and a country. And looking at the cases through an open mindset suggested by Geertz, helps us better understand the observations mentioned.
Prior to reading Hamdy’s article I had an exaggerated stereotype about religion and medical intervention. My knowledge came from taking a course in Bioethics, and included scenarios in which patients would refuse blood transfusions based on conflict with religious faith. I thought this was “backward” as Hamdy references as a common label. I did not consider all the factors that go into medical interventions that explain the reasoning behind these patients.
I strongly agree with you that by understanding a patient’s religious beliefs we can be more ethical instead of pushing against opposing views. This will also contribute to a more well-rounded approach to healthcare that is more focused on patient needs, rather than repeatedly performing medical paternalism. I admit Muhammad and Ali’s reasons against transplant were surprisingly reasonable to me. I figured it was solely based on conflict in faith, not that they did not want to be a burden to their family throughout the surgical process and afterwards if it resulted in financial debt. It is factual that organ transplants do not have a 100% success rate, as mentioned in the text, and this is valid for any person to consider, religious or not.
I found Geertz article harder to understand and your post cleared up some of my confusion about the importance of a thick description. I like how you connected Geertz’s article to the Hamdy reading. It is individual scenarios like Muhammad and Ali that break ignorance by letting the reader reshape opinions of different groups through reading stories about real people.
Your blog post was very insightful. As your post insinuates, the overarching ideas of “Thick Descriptions” were digestible to the reader. Geertz successfully communicated how great attention to detail and consideration of thought compose “thick descriptions” and can be the means of a great ethnography. Although the main idea was communicated, I feel that the examples Geertz sampled in this essay made it much more difficult to read. Last week, I read “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight” by Geertz. It was interesting to see the difference in his article about ethnographies and an ethnography written by him. I can see how his interpretation of what an ethnography is influenced how he conducted one.
I appreciate how you applied Clifford Geertz’s ideas of an ethnography in your reading of Sherine Hamdy’s article. I found “Does Submission to God’s Will Prevent Biotechnological Intervention?” to be quite clear. Hamdy’s argument of the ethics on both sides of Egypt’s organ transplantation controversy were easy to follow. The anecdotes of Muhammad and Ali were compelling and gave a more complex look at the beliefs and socio-medical issues surrounding organ transplantation. For me, the most intriguing part of the article was the section “A Change of Heart.” It described how Ali changed his mind about organ transplants and how his religious interpretations changed to enable them. I question whether Ali would have gotten if the transplant if his wife had been a match, whether he would have regretted the decision if he had decided to do so, and if his religious views would have changed to match whatever situation.
Good questions
I agree with what you are saying regarding the challenges of rally Geertz’s article. I also understood the main points similarly. I think the emphasis on culture is critical. In various classes I have taken in the past, we have talked about and emphasized the importance of culture and understanding the differences within cultures. When he brings up the point of how there are so many intertwined aspects of Ethnography stating they are “written not in conventionalized grans of sound but in transient examples of shaped behavior”, I was confused by the big picture here. I like how you brought up the idea microscopic nature of ethnography because it reaffirms kind of the overall scope to be pretty narrow and focused.
As for the article by Hamdy, I connected and found a lot of meaning in the emphasis of religious sentiments. In a Medical Anthropology course we read a book about how not understanding and learning about a patients culture(primarily when different than your own), could actually be very harmful to the quality of care. Religion is a key component of looking into things such as ethics of certain technologies and or treatments. I think his argument against the myth that religion opposes technological and scientific process is exceptionally valuable and informative. I like how you bring together the ideas that there are so many components to a patients decision regarding there medical treatment. The point Hamdy makes about disagreeing about being fatalistic is the same as disagreement about sociomedical risks costs and benefits, brings together all the different components of the decision in a profound way. The reasons that were brought up against transplant such as it being hard on the family and also financially were very understandable to mea s well.
Good job, Grace! Thank you for your blog post on Thick Description: Towards an Interpretative Theory of Culture – Clifford Geertz. It helps me a lot to understand more of the article. Although I know that Geertz wants to illustrate that ethnography is an important tool to start the anthropological analysis and to develop large-scale theories, I found it is still hard for me to fully understand the examples he used. For example, When he illustrates “thin description” and “thick description”, he believes it is like “what the rehearser (parodist, winker, twitcher…)” is doing (“rapidly contracting his right eyelids”) and the “thick description” of what he is doing (“practicing a burlesque of a friend faking a wink to deceive an innocent into thinking a conspiracy is in motion”) lies the object of ethnography. (Geertz 7) I was a bit confused about what Geertz really want to express until I read your blog. You pointed out that Geertz believes the important part of ethnographic findings is their complex specificness and realness, and long-term, qualitative, highly participative studies allow anthropologists to go deeper on specific topics.
I also like your reflection on Does Submission to God’s Will Prevent Biotechnological Intervention?” by Sherine F. Hamdy. I found myself really enjoy this article because it is about organ transplantation. As a pre-med student, I am interested to see that ethic issues behind the kidney transplants. From this article, I also learned that there are patients who would reject to go through the kidney transplant. The reason is that they would much rather die than to cause harm to one of the family members and lead them to poverty. This example made me realize: although advanced medical procedures continue to improve, sometimes it still can’t save people’s lives if it costs too much financially and physically.
specificness is not a word. You may have meant specificity
Just as you, and what seems to be like many others, I also found the Geertz reading to be almost philosophical and rather challenging to get through at some points. I appreciate your synopsis. When thinking through the discussions of thin description vs. thick description, and how ethnography is largely an interpretation of ethnographer’s experience, I would also be more curious to further research objectivity vs. subjectivity within an ethnographer’s thick description. More specifically, how ethnographers draw the line (assuming such a line exists) for themselves in their writing when evaluating social and cultural contexts; and how the ethnographers then further accept or reject such interpretations as facts when using these materials to draw larger conclusions in theories of human culture and nature.
As with many others, Hamdy’s article was also one of the first encounters I have had at this intersection between religion and science. The scenarios exposure on how patient’s interests and doctor’s interests can conflict really shed light on just how strong an influence religion is in the life and death of the individual. I appreciate the stance Hamdy took to reject religious fatalism as obstructing people from using biotechnology, and agree that without her perspective I may miss insights into the positive role religion plays in the patients undergoing treatments.
I also second Grace’s opinion that the Clifford Geertz reading was denser than the Sherine F Hamdy reading. Grace’s blog post and summary helped me further understand what Geertz was trying to say about ethnography and “thick description.” The quotes used are well-placed and the connection between the two readings allowed me to take a step back and reflect on the importance of ethnography in everyday life.
Through the story of the Jewish peddlers, Berber horsemen and the French Legionnaires, Geertz gives us an example of the lack of “thick description” and what occurs as a result. For example, the French did not and could not understand the exchange of sheep as pay for the two murdered visitors and puts Cohen in prison. We see a lack of “thick description” in that moment. I recall our previous class discussion about the Nuer tribe and what the exchange of cattle meant. Sherine F. Hamdy’s article shows us a different narrative of medical decisions and the Muslim religion. In a way, she offers us a “thick description” of the Muslim religion and its role in medical decisions through Muhammad and Ali’s stories.
“Thick description” was an intriguing read, and I found it was one of those pieces that you had to read in its entirety to fully understand. I found myself stopping halfway through a paragraph many times having no idea what was being said, but by the end of the paragraph, I was able to understand what Clifford Geertz was trying to say. It is interesting that you are an Anthropology major so ethnographies were familiar to you. I am not an Anthro major so while I was aware what an ethnography was, I had never read one so everything Clifford Geertz said was new to me. It was interesting to read what you find novel as well.
The Sherine F Hamdy reading was more fun for me and went by quicker than the previous one. I liked how you connected the two by commenting on how her work could be connected to more topics than just organ donation. Many of my own family members believe in different types of Christianity and I have talked with them about being an organ donor so that was at the forefront of my mind while reading this piece. I, however, did not connect that I was using the examples given in the Sherine F Hamdy reading to my own life. I think that making those connections is intuitive to a lot of us, but not something you would usually put into words.
With Geertz’s reading, I agree that it was very hard to read and understand the points right away. First, I really liked the way Kluckhohn defined culture as ‘the total way of life of a people’ and ‘a way of thinking feeling, and believing.’ Because culture has so many meaning within this one word, I agree that it is necessary to choose one definition that will be useful in different ways. Furthermore, ethnography as thick description, which is meaningful structures behind what is being observed, really seems to have gathered a lot of meanings in one place to me.
For the Hamdy’s reading, even though I personally have a strong belief in medical technology advancement, (certainly only the ones with good outcomes), I could understand where Muhammad is coming from. Healthcare financial issues are such a burden to a lot of people, and this alone can be enough reason to reject the transplant. In Muhammad’s case, his religious belief in addition to financial burden are totally understandable for his reluctance of the transplant. Furthermore, anyone could question the efficacy of any type of procedure or surgical treatment and be afraid of the risks.
In Ali’s case, it is so interesting. He has a potential donor, his wife, and insurance with which pay for the transplant. However, because of his religious belief of appealing to the God’s will, he refuses the transplant. Here, we know be aware that no-one including God, is making Ali to make such decision. He understands God and have a strong faithful relationship with Him, that he made the decision which does not make him regret. I do not want to call this submission to God, but embracement to God.
Great work on your response! You did a great job at focusing on the main points of the text while including relevant supporting detail. To further expand on your points regarding the possible room for biases/discrepancies within the field of ethnography, it seems that the overall theme you have touched upon is the potential for ethnography to become saturated with subjectivities, a theme I have contemplated in anthropology courses I have taken. As a method in the field of anthropology, ethnography is a tool that can be quite useful in capturing the essence of why a particular societal, cultural, etc. action is taking place within the realm of said cultural setting. However, there is a certain degree of interpretation that comes into play when anthropologists translate their initial notes- thick descriptions- into coherent ethnographical analyses. I’ve employed the term “translate” here because I do feel there is some degree of making what is observed fit into the researcher’s own understanding of terms and ideas (conceptions that are inextricably linked to their own cultural upbringing). I have often wondered: to what extent can anthropologists truly detach themselves from their own cultural setting from which they originate (a setting that possesses its very own cultural ideals and taboos) in a manner that is truly objective? As a field mainly dominated by upper class, college educated, predominantly Western researchers, it’s easy to question whether the vast majority of anthropological texts have been written through that very specific cultural lens. How can we combat that innate subjectivity? Your point on the small population sizes studied and the particularity of contexts (i.e. specific locations during very specific time periods) in which anthropologists typically conduct ethnographical research may only fuel the evident lack of external replicability or reliability of ethnography as a tool.
Your summary and comments on the Hamdy article were also quite concise and captured the situational nuances the author has touched upon in the text. Hamdy’s aim is to evaluate patients who choose not to act (in this case not acting is indeed an action) upon the medical advice given to them, especially in the case of an invasive procedure. It is important to consider these patients’ complex responses to particular procedures, especially regarding their beliefs on the level of invasiveness of said procedure. It seems that it is a common misconception that patients may simply refuse any and all treatment because they believe people should not intervene with matters of fate, or matters of god (the language here differs), but rather it seems these individuals have also factored in the nature and intensity of the procedure itself, in addition to the collateral damage (in the case of organ transplants) that donors may suffer.
I found Geertz’s Thick Description to be an insightful read where he asserts that anthropological writing is a form of fiction, but not false. I agree with your post in regards to Geertz where thick description provides cultural context–quite a contrast to thin description where one is merely stating facts and neglecting the potential cultural context of various acts.
Personally I found Hamdy’s argument “…against the dominant narrative of religious fatalism obstruct[ing] people from pursuing biotechnological intervention” (144), to be a valid point. When reading about Ali, I found it profound that if Ali were to “find himself in an alternate sociomedical setting in which a kidney was somehow made available to him without such constant reminders of risk and cost, he would likely accept it” (153). Going back to Geertz’s thick description, understanding the cultural contexts in which Ali and other patients are finding themselves in where, contrary to the United States, patients themselves are placed with the responsibilities of finding a donor and being face-to-face with the potential pain and economic costs that they, the patients, will be causing to the donor and the patient’s family, Hamdy was able to give me, as a reader, more insight to why patients opt out of the transplant process. Hamdy also does a phenomenal job in making the distinction between a patient’s cost-benefits analysis and how religion plays a role in the process. Religion does not play a passive role to one’s treatment and is not in opposition to seeking treatment, but rather interrelated within a patient’s personal cost-benefit analysis.
I really value the insights you made here. I must agree that the article by Geertz is indeed dense but I don’t think it is an impossible read. I think one of the most important quotes in the entirety of his argument is one the third page of his essay where he states: ” man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning.” I think this quote defines the entirety of his paper. People, societies, and cultures are complex. We do things according to laws that govern our behavior within the limits of how our society governs or sees those behaviors. Ethnography is about putting yourself on the inside while coming from an outside point of view. Anthropology is about understanding the web of man-made significance, as Geertz would say, in a science that is aimed more about knowledge of the unknown than the application of universal laws. He says this same idea in a different way “that what we call our data are really our own constructions of other people’s constructions;” anthropological data goes beyond the mere scope of interpreting the obvious. Real ethnography is about the microscopic details in which you mention, it’s about the way every aspect of a small culture is interwoven- but it’s also about how those small details play out on a global scale and how they persist in time. The San people have been one of the most studied hunter-gatherer groups in Africa but this prolonged ethnographic study of their culture recognizes that their culture has changed. Due to this prolonged emphasis on their culture they have received a lot of attention, amongst many educated groups, on a global scale which has shifted their society and altered their culture. Geertz’s article is dense but I think his article is insightful and speaks to an anthropological audience.
In light of Hamdy’s article I thought you did a really great job at laying out the foundations of her argument. I think her argument has a lot to do with Medical Anthropology and how certain peoples think about modern medicine in light of their cultural beliefs, in this case being their religion. In many societies cultural beliefs about health and well-being are directly tied to their spiritual beliefs and thus their way of life. This article is no exception. The anthropological approach of this article speaks volumes, especially when Hamdy recognizes the approach of the doctors in the area and their willingness to label people like Ali and Muhammad as “fanatics” or “fatalists”. An ethnography by a well-respected anthropologist would never include terms like these. As Geertz discussed in his article, anthropology is about understand the human web of significance and religion happens to be a huge factor of the significance that humans place on their lives. Dr. Yusuf’s interpretation of God’s will for Muhammad’s life is nothing significant, it is obvious that Dr. Yusuf (and thus most of the transplant doctors in the area) do not agree with the mindset of Muhammad. This is the importance of an anthropological approach- it does not matter what Dr. Yusuf thinks, Muhammad strongly believes that his life has been planned by God from the moment of his birth and the meaning of his life, and every decision he has made in his life are tied to this central belief. I think this is also important to note about Ali’s temporary change of heart. Had his wife been a tissue match I think there could have been a questionable possibility but his central belief was not to burden his family with his sickness. His sickness was a part of God’s plan for his life and so the question remains- would he save his life, at the expense of his wife, and alter God’s divine plan? Would he change his most central belief on the chance that this operation would preserve his body for a few more years?