What’s The Connection Between Complex Chemistry and Islamic Medieval Architecture?

 

karbala, iraw

 

The expansive domes and minarets of famous mosques such as the Blue Mosque in Istanbul or Al-Masjid An-Nabbi in Medina exude a quiet, powerful energy. Oftentimes these are characterized by a large, stone courtyard. You walk through the simple, colorless path towards the mosque entrance. You feel cleansed, as if you’re leaving a part of the world outside; it’s almost unsettling. At a first glance, you could describe these mosques as plain. Crossing the threshold, however paints a different picture. Your sight is overloaded with bright jewel-toned colors: azure, emerald, turquoise, fuchsia, red. It’s hard to focus on one detail – will it be the gold leaf, intricate etch work, milky marble, shimmering glasswork? You are humbled standing underneath the enormous ceilings.

The glittering shrines and mosques that characterized medieval Islamic architecture are more than just a pretty sight, but in fact the product of geometrical planning. Aside from the lavish materials and colors, it is the tiling patterns that make the architecture stand out. These patterns are featured prominently in Islamic arts as a substitute for more figurative images. The reasoning was that images depicting people would lead to idol worship. Inside the mosque, you see these tiles plastered densely together on the ceilings, the columns, the minarets, the free wall space.(*)

Islamic interlacing patterns can be divided into two categories: the arabesque versus girih. While arabesque designs feature more curved elements in an effort to emulate greenery and nature, the girih is composed of geometric lines mostly of stars and polygons with interlaced lines. Muslim architects designed the girih tiling system with only two simple tools: a compass and ruler. These patterns became complex tessellations made up of up to five different shapes: the bowtie, rhombus, pentagon, elongated hexagon, and decagon. Between the 1200s to 1400s, Islamic art developed the girih exhibiting the same complexity as quasi-crystals, a material that defies normal atom packing. Back at the mosque, you trace your fingers along the figurative tiles that blend seamlessly. A lime green pentagon here, an ivory star there.You see that the tiles are made of contrasting colors with a multitude of small shapes.

Quasi-crystals are made of patterns that look regular but do not repeat exactly. The patterns in Islamic architecture demonstrate this by including “tessellations” that have five, ten, and twelve-fold symmetry. Technically, they are are not actually patterns, but just appear to be so. Scientists conjecture that Islamic architects wanted the effect of extend a pattern without just repeating images. Looking up at some of the mosques ceilings confirms the success of this design – you feel as if you are swallowed by the dizzying depths of shimmering oceans and bright stars.500 years later mathematical physicist, Roger Penrose at University of Oxford discovered the concept of quasi-aperiodic tiling. Sir Penrose stumbled upon a pair of tiles that cannot form a pattern in a periodic manner. This discovery was just a consequence of his work on the famous tiling pattern in mathematics – “given a collection of polygonal shapes, is it possible to cover the whole plane using just these shapes, with no overlaps?”

Quasicrystals are found mostly in metallic alloys such as (Al-Li-Cu), and lack translational symmetry. The discovery of the non-symmetrical packing of atoms took a while for the scientific community to accept. Although first discovered in the 1960s, much of the scientific community refused to believe that materials could consist of irregular atomic structure. Next, materials scientist, Dr. Dan Shectman, designed an artificial alloy with quasi-crystal properties. He did not publish his results for years because he feared that others would ridicule his work.  Only after researcheres found a  natural quasi-crystal, icosahedrite in the Koryak Mountains, Russia in 2009 that led people to be convinced. Shectman received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2011 for this work.

Researchers connected Islamic girih and quasi-crystals recently; Dr. Peter Lu a physicist from Harvard University recognized ten-fold symmetry in architectural motifs while visiting Uzbekistan.  He analyzed 3700 Penrose tiles found in an archive of documented medieval Islamic architecture, and published a paper with Princeton University’s Dr. Paul Steinhardt titled ”Decagonal and Quasi-Crystalline Tilings in Medieval Islamic Architecture”. Dr. Lu uses the Darb-I-Imam Shrine in Iran as the iconic “near perfect” example of Penrose tiling. He conjectures that laborers could easily have created mathematically complex patterns by lining tiles decorated with lines that, once set down next to each other, form a continuous pattern.

Back at the mosque – you see a worshipper prostrated to the ground, oblivious of the art around them. Their hearts disconnected from the ancient mathematics and chemical mimicry in which they are enclosed in. Science and spirituality; a Nobel prize in chemistry yet also an artform. These two paradigms reside side by side in the glorious, kaleidoscopic patterns of centuries old Islamic architecture. There is an elegance in the scales that aperiodic tiling has reached – from the utterly microscopic crystals to the gigantic mosques that can hold thousands of people.

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.