BackgroundPsychological distress/morbidity is amongst the primary reason for the cause of pain at multiple sites, its progression, and recovery. Though still not very clear if physical pain in the neck or the back may predict psychological morbidities or not. Thus, we investigated the association between combined neck or back pain and psychological distress/morbidity.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia, including 1,003 individuals. The questionnaire comprised of General Health Questionnaire-12 and some questions about neck and back pain. Data analysis (...) was done using statistical software SPSS version 26.0.ResultsThe results of the multivariate analysis revealed a significant positive association between neck/back pain status and total GHQ score. Having neck/back pain had almost a 2.5 times greater risk of psychological distress/morbidity. Further, females were more likely to have a higher risk of psychological distress/morbidity than males while adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.ConclusionThe combination of neck and back pain was significantly associated with the Saudi population’s psychological problems. Therefore, the Saudi government needs to devise high-risk strategies and allocate adequate resources to the cause so that at-risk people can be shielded from the adverse complications arising from this condition in the long run. (shrink)

The existence of ‘human-like’ attributes and actions in the Qur’an and Hebrew Bible entails to various interpretations towards anthropomorphic verses among the Muslim and Jewish counterparts. Al-Ghazali and Maimonides in their discourses strongly affirmed the unity of God and refuted anthropomorphism. Therefore, this study expounded al-Ghazali and Maimonides’ methods in affirming the incorporeality of God through outlining the similarities and differences in their interpretation. This study was qualitative in nature which analyses writings of al-Ghazali and Maimonides in encountering anthropomorphism. It (...) can be deduced that both scholars were found to be employing allegorical interpretation with different level of interpretations in their attempts to repudiate the corporeal form of God. Alternatively, they both agree on the literalist’s approach with conditions that one must not perceive God’s essence in a bodily figure. Consequently, believing so will lead one to heresy. In sum, their emphasis on an incorporeal God brought them to similar interpretation despite their different religion and theological or philosophical orientation.Contribution: This article contributed to comparative theological study in understanding anthropomorphic verses through the discourse of al-Ghazali and Maimonides in Islam and Judaism, respectively. (shrink)