The Tribe has always been an important concept in Arabian and Islamic history, creating divisions among its dwellers and followers. How has this caused problems in the history of Islam?
The Tribe in Arabian and Islamic history has caused problems in the history of Islam because it has caused many wars and uprisings within the religion and empire of Islam. Under the control of the first four caliphs (Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and 'Ali), the empires were calm and there was unity and strong connections between the peoples of Islam. However, with some of the successors such as Abu'l-'Abbass and Abu Ja'far al-Mansur, these close connections between the caliphs and the rest of society vanished. Instead, they separated themselves from the general population which resulted in the anger and confusion of some Muslims. Another problem with tribes was that many tribes were opposed to each other's beliefs according to religion, military, etc. For example, many devout Muslims extremely disagreed with the beliefs of the Umayyads. The 'Abassids, the Kharjites, and the followers of 'Ali all believed "that the spirit of Islam had been betrayed by the secular-minded Umayyads." Many disputes occured amongst different tribes because of power issues or disagreements which eventually led to the collapse of some of these tribes/empires.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Blog #9
How has the religious history of India influenced India’s tradition of non-violence?
I think that the religious history of India has influenced India's tradition f non-violence because they were very opposed to any form of violence. We can even see this in the fact that Hindus were vegetarians because they did not want to kill animals (a form of violence). Mohandas Gandhi also played a very important role in the outcome of India's non-violence. During Gandhi's explorations, he received a lot of embarrassment and insults were thrown at him constantly. These insults lead Gandhi to realize that he would not accept social injustice as part of society in South Africa. Mohandas Gandhi also worked for months to get the Natal Legislative Assembly to allow Indian's to vote; Gandhi fought for their independence. We can also see that Gandhi was opposed to violence because when he was assaulted in Durban in 1897, Gandhi refused to let the people who assaulted him get prosecuted. Gandhi was not interested in money, or violence against other regions, but rather, what he thought was right. In 1924, Gandhi fasted for three weeks in order to get people to turn against violence. Gandhi was able to defeat many peoples and get tons of people in jail without using violence to defeat them. Gandhi instilled non-violence into his people, and one of the three major revolutions of the 20th century that he made was of violence. Gandhi wrote a book as well, called Hind Swaraj, part of which was about the rejection of violence.
All of Mohandas Gandhi's work for the installation of non-violence in ancient India are why India is generally opposed to violence. If it hadn't been for Gandhi's ideals on violence, I don't think that India would at all be the same place it is today.
Sources: http://www.search.eb.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/eb/article-22632
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Blog Entry #7
Can migrations have a positive impact on the people and/or land receiving the immigrants?
Migrations can have a positive impact on the people and land receiving the immigrants because new ideas and trade can be spread throughout the new area. The increase of population as well is a positive effect because with the growth of lands, comes the growth of trade routes. Language, religion, ideas and arts were transferred and exchanged with the newcoming of the immigrants. The cities and manufacturing companies grew as well. I think that the main positive impact was the spread of new ideas and religion/customs because with these changes, more inventions and technilogical advances were created. The different ideas of the immigrants and the inhabitants of the land weaved together to create new ideas. These new ideas are what helped to create the world and make it the way it is today.
Migrations can have a positive impact on the people and land receiving the immigrants because new ideas and trade can be spread throughout the new area. The increase of population as well is a positive effect because with the growth of lands, comes the growth of trade routes. Language, religion, ideas and arts were transferred and exchanged with the newcoming of the immigrants. The cities and manufacturing companies grew as well. I think that the main positive impact was the spread of new ideas and religion/customs because with these changes, more inventions and technilogical advances were created. The different ideas of the immigrants and the inhabitants of the land weaved together to create new ideas. These new ideas are what helped to create the world and make it the way it is today.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Blog #6
1. Pick one of the quotes from Socrates ("The Words of Socrates") and agree or disagree.
"He is richest who is content with the least." I disagree with this quote because although the word "richest" doesn't always necessarily have to be associated with money, I don't think that it means you're happiest with the least. Being happy with what you have and being happy with the least are different things. Also, it usually never happens that someone is actually happy with what they have. It is human nature to always want something more.
2. What is justice to Plato?
Plato describes justice as being whatever the strong decide it is. He says that whatever is in their best interest, is just. I don't agree with this because I don't feel like the strongest should get determine what is just and what is not.
3. What do you think about Plato's ideal republic (What are positive elements of it? Negative?)
Plato's ideal republic is an aristocratic state. The jobs and roles of people in society would be based on their intelligence, bravery, and strength. The lower people in society (which Plato thought was majority of the state) were called "producers" because they did the most producing for the state. The people in the middle (a large group of society but smaller than producers) were called Auxiliaries; they made up the army and the police. The highest group in society (a very small group) were called Guardians and they would be in complete control of the state. I think that Plato's ideal republic sounds pretty good; this way all the jobs get done well. The positive elements would be that every group would be fit for their role in society, so all of their tasks would be done well. However the negative elements are that aristocracy can be unfair because sometimes the highest class doesn't deserve to have the highest priority in everything.
4. What is your vision of an ideal state or republic?
My vision of an ideal state or republic would be for everyone to do what they wanted to do. There would be one or two rulers who got voted in by democracy. Each person would have a job/role that they played in society that would suit them well but everyone would be equal when it came to politics and owning land.
5. The Allegory of the Cave argues that the only thing standing in the way of knowledge is our insistence that the visual universe is reality. What does this mean?
The Allegory of the Cave was what Plato's theory about people who didn't understand what "Forms" were. People who didn't understand what Forms were, were compared to people trapped in a cave who couldn't move their heads. There was a fire behind them and puppetteers, so that all the people in the cave could see were the shadows cast by the puppets. Therefore, when they saw the shadow of an object, such as a book, they would talk to each other about the "book" they saw. However, they were not actually seeing the book, they were seeing the shadow of the book. What Plato tries to teach us here is that sometimes when we talk about objects, we aren't actually talking about the real thing; we are talking about the "shadow" of them.
"He is richest who is content with the least." I disagree with this quote because although the word "richest" doesn't always necessarily have to be associated with money, I don't think that it means you're happiest with the least. Being happy with what you have and being happy with the least are different things. Also, it usually never happens that someone is actually happy with what they have. It is human nature to always want something more.
2. What is justice to Plato?
Plato describes justice as being whatever the strong decide it is. He says that whatever is in their best interest, is just. I don't agree with this because I don't feel like the strongest should get determine what is just and what is not.
3. What do you think about Plato's ideal republic (What are positive elements of it? Negative?)
Plato's ideal republic is an aristocratic state. The jobs and roles of people in society would be based on their intelligence, bravery, and strength. The lower people in society (which Plato thought was majority of the state) were called "producers" because they did the most producing for the state. The people in the middle (a large group of society but smaller than producers) were called Auxiliaries; they made up the army and the police. The highest group in society (a very small group) were called Guardians and they would be in complete control of the state. I think that Plato's ideal republic sounds pretty good; this way all the jobs get done well. The positive elements would be that every group would be fit for their role in society, so all of their tasks would be done well. However the negative elements are that aristocracy can be unfair because sometimes the highest class doesn't deserve to have the highest priority in everything.
4. What is your vision of an ideal state or republic?
My vision of an ideal state or republic would be for everyone to do what they wanted to do. There would be one or two rulers who got voted in by democracy. Each person would have a job/role that they played in society that would suit them well but everyone would be equal when it came to politics and owning land.
5. The Allegory of the Cave argues that the only thing standing in the way of knowledge is our insistence that the visual universe is reality. What does this mean?
The Allegory of the Cave was what Plato's theory about people who didn't understand what "Forms" were. People who didn't understand what Forms were, were compared to people trapped in a cave who couldn't move their heads. There was a fire behind them and puppetteers, so that all the people in the cave could see were the shadows cast by the puppets. Therefore, when they saw the shadow of an object, such as a book, they would talk to each other about the "book" they saw. However, they were not actually seeing the book, they were seeing the shadow of the book. What Plato tries to teach us here is that sometimes when we talk about objects, we aren't actually talking about the real thing; we are talking about the "shadow" of them.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Blog Entry #5
1. If you were a young teenage girl of the citizen class, in which city-state would you rather live? Why?
If I was a young teenage girl of the citizen class, I would rather live in Sparta. In Athens, women had no rights and were barely ever even seen outside the house. Wives in Athens were considered property of their husbands and the only women who could leave the house were prostitutes and courtesans. In Sparta, women had rights, and were more independent in Sparta than anywhere else in Greece. They were treated as equals to men and received a lot of freedom. Spartan women could own and control their own property and they had the important job of guarding their husband's property against invaders during times of war. I wouldn't want to live in a place where I didn't have a say in anything political and where I could only do work in the home. In Sparta, girls held the important job of bearing brave sons to be in the military. Also, girls received education in Sparta at age 7 in reading, writing, gymnastics, athletics and survival skills whereas in Athens girls received little or no education.
2. If you were a slave, in which would you rather live? Why?
If I was a slave, I would rather live in Athens. Although in both Sparta and Athens, servants (or serfs) were the lowest class, the slaves in Athens had more of a chance to become something important. In Athens, slaves were treated less harshly than in most other Greek cities. Although an owner could kill their slave, some of them had significant roles in Athenian society, such as policemen. The serfs in Sparta often rebelled and had to give half of their produce to the owners of the land. I would rather have at least a chance of having a role in society as a servant than nothing at all, so Athens would be better for me.
3. If you were a boy of the citizen class, in which would you rather live? Why?
If was a boy of the citizen class I would rather live in Athens. The boys in Athens had more rights than in Sparta; even the lowest class (before servants) had roles in the society. The aristocrats had large estates and made up the cavalry. Middle ranks were small farmers and lowest class were the thetes, or the craftsmen. Then there were the metics: the people that came from outside the city...they couldn't own land but they could still run industries and businesses. In Sparta, the Spartiates were the military professionals--they could be in the army and vote. The neighbors/outsiders were artisans, craftsmen, and merchants--they couldn't vote or serve in the army. Another reason why I would rather be a boy living in Athens is because they receive better education and values. They were taught reading, writing, math, music, poetry, sports and gymnastics. Boys in Athens entered military training camp for two years which was really important. In Sparta, boys were separated from their parents at age seven and trained in warfare. In order to learn survival skills, they weren't given food or clothes, which forced them to steal. I don't think that it is right to teach children to steal; it's not a good moral. The boys could marry but they still had to live in barracks with other soldiers.
4. If you were a young soldier, in which would you rather live? Why?
If I was a young soldier, I would rather live in Sparta. The Spartans had a vrey strong army, and they were the best/ most feared fighters on land. All education in Sparta focused on military strategies and war. I would want to live in a place where we were known for being the best fighters.
5. If you were a very wealthy person of the citizen class, in which would you rather live? Why?
If I was a very wealthy person of the citizen class I would rather live in Athens. The wealthier people got four more years of education, and sometimes students of the wealthier class could be sent to academies where they would also study philosophy, ethics, and rhetoric. Education is a really important principle, so to receive more of it is beneficial. Another advantage of being wealthier in Athens was that the wealthiest people were aristocrats. Aristocrats had large estates and made up the cavalry or captained triremes.
6. Would you rather live in Athens or Sparta? Why?
Although both Athens and Sparta have good things about them, I would rather live in Sparta. In Athens, I liked their values better than those of Sparta. Athens was a democratic city where participation in government was believed to be a civic responsibility. The education in Athens was also extremely good. However, in Sparta, there was belief in equality for all; including girls/women. In Sparta, women actually had rights which is opposite from women's roles in society in Athens. As a girl, it is important for me to be able to have a say in things, and not just sit in the house. Sparta also had better militaristic skills which is an extremely important quality for a city to have so that the population doesn't get affected. The main thing that would make me want to live in Sparta more, though, is women's rights.
If I was a young teenage girl of the citizen class, I would rather live in Sparta. In Athens, women had no rights and were barely ever even seen outside the house. Wives in Athens were considered property of their husbands and the only women who could leave the house were prostitutes and courtesans. In Sparta, women had rights, and were more independent in Sparta than anywhere else in Greece. They were treated as equals to men and received a lot of freedom. Spartan women could own and control their own property and they had the important job of guarding their husband's property against invaders during times of war. I wouldn't want to live in a place where I didn't have a say in anything political and where I could only do work in the home. In Sparta, girls held the important job of bearing brave sons to be in the military. Also, girls received education in Sparta at age 7 in reading, writing, gymnastics, athletics and survival skills whereas in Athens girls received little or no education.
2. If you were a slave, in which would you rather live? Why?
If I was a slave, I would rather live in Athens. Although in both Sparta and Athens, servants (or serfs) were the lowest class, the slaves in Athens had more of a chance to become something important. In Athens, slaves were treated less harshly than in most other Greek cities. Although an owner could kill their slave, some of them had significant roles in Athenian society, such as policemen. The serfs in Sparta often rebelled and had to give half of their produce to the owners of the land. I would rather have at least a chance of having a role in society as a servant than nothing at all, so Athens would be better for me.
3. If you were a boy of the citizen class, in which would you rather live? Why?
If was a boy of the citizen class I would rather live in Athens. The boys in Athens had more rights than in Sparta; even the lowest class (before servants) had roles in the society. The aristocrats had large estates and made up the cavalry. Middle ranks were small farmers and lowest class were the thetes, or the craftsmen. Then there were the metics: the people that came from outside the city...they couldn't own land but they could still run industries and businesses. In Sparta, the Spartiates were the military professionals--they could be in the army and vote. The neighbors/outsiders were artisans, craftsmen, and merchants--they couldn't vote or serve in the army. Another reason why I would rather be a boy living in Athens is because they receive better education and values. They were taught reading, writing, math, music, poetry, sports and gymnastics. Boys in Athens entered military training camp for two years which was really important. In Sparta, boys were separated from their parents at age seven and trained in warfare. In order to learn survival skills, they weren't given food or clothes, which forced them to steal. I don't think that it is right to teach children to steal; it's not a good moral. The boys could marry but they still had to live in barracks with other soldiers.
4. If you were a young soldier, in which would you rather live? Why?
If I was a young soldier, I would rather live in Sparta. The Spartans had a vrey strong army, and they were the best/ most feared fighters on land. All education in Sparta focused on military strategies and war. I would want to live in a place where we were known for being the best fighters.
5. If you were a very wealthy person of the citizen class, in which would you rather live? Why?
If I was a very wealthy person of the citizen class I would rather live in Athens. The wealthier people got four more years of education, and sometimes students of the wealthier class could be sent to academies where they would also study philosophy, ethics, and rhetoric. Education is a really important principle, so to receive more of it is beneficial. Another advantage of being wealthier in Athens was that the wealthiest people were aristocrats. Aristocrats had large estates and made up the cavalry or captained triremes.
6. Would you rather live in Athens or Sparta? Why?
Although both Athens and Sparta have good things about them, I would rather live in Sparta. In Athens, I liked their values better than those of Sparta. Athens was a democratic city where participation in government was believed to be a civic responsibility. The education in Athens was also extremely good. However, in Sparta, there was belief in equality for all; including girls/women. In Sparta, women actually had rights which is opposite from women's roles in society in Athens. As a girl, it is important for me to be able to have a say in things, and not just sit in the house. Sparta also had better militaristic skills which is an extremely important quality for a city to have so that the population doesn't get affected. The main thing that would make me want to live in Sparta more, though, is women's rights.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Blog Entry #4
Question: New ideas in politics and philosophy tend to emerge in times of social, political, and/or economic stress. How can this be explained?
New ideas in politics and philosophy usually emerge in times of socail,political, or economic stress. This is because in times of turmoil, people are forced to think of ways to solve the fall of their empire for example, and therefore come up with new ideas. When people are happy with how they are, or how their government is, they won't have anything to change or anything to complain about. But when there are problems with the government of economy, people will complain and blame it on whoever is in charge. People want change in times of trouble, and this forces new ideas to emerge and change history. For example, when most of the Shi's were disciples of Confucianism, they were frustrated that Shi Huangdi favored the Legalists. So, when Liu Bang and his successors were in charge, they banned the works of Legalists and instilled Confucious teachings and imperial schools. When there is a problem in the country or economy, it is usually blamed on the president. In order to be introduced to new ideas or change how things are, we elect a new president. So, in times of turmoil, new ideas emerge because people need change and are not happy in the current state of their empire/country.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Blog Entry #3
Population growth was the most significant development of the classical period. True or false?
Population growth was one of the two most significant developments of the classical period. The population growth improved species of crops and more food per acre. Although population growth caused deforestation/ environmental concerns, it also created more complex societies. Collective learning increased and more people began living in large cities. The other significant development of the classical period was networks of exchange. Networks of exchange involved empires, trade routes, the development of writing, and religion. The different roads involved in networks of exchange were extremely important. The silk roads pomoted pastorialism, and the sea routes helped with shipbuilding and navigation. So, population growth was a main development of the classical period.
Population growth was one of the two most significant developments of the classical period. The population growth improved species of crops and more food per acre. Although population growth caused deforestation/ environmental concerns, it also created more complex societies. Collective learning increased and more people began living in large cities. The other significant development of the classical period was networks of exchange. Networks of exchange involved empires, trade routes, the development of writing, and religion. The different roads involved in networks of exchange were extremely important. The silk roads pomoted pastorialism, and the sea routes helped with shipbuilding and navigation. So, population growth was a main development of the classical period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)