Alexander the impulsive, Alexander the ambitious, Alexander the ruthless, Alexander the vicious, Alexander the megalomaniac, the warlord, the daring, Alexander the impulsive, Alexander the ambitious, Alexander the ruthless, Alexander the vicious, Alexander the megalomaniac, the warlord, the daring, the bisexual, the drunkard. And some call him the Great.
But was Alexander truly great or merely bloodthirsty? The whole point fades to nothingness when you consider that in those times bloodthirstiness WAS greatness. Born to Philip II of Macedon, who was a powerbroker and essentially set the base for Aexander's empire and a mother, Princess Olympias of Albania, with a penchant for gruesome bestial rituals in the service of a pagan diety. Aexander was born into power, lust and ambition. The stance of the Macedonian empire at that time was one of expansion and Aexander's was just the brutal intelligence that it needed to explode outwards afer Philips cunning diplomacy set the stage for its launch.
That is not to say however that everything was lovey dovey between father and son.. Alexander had to ultimately design the death of Philip after the latter, going through a midlife crisis, took a new wife and threatened to disown him. But whats a little patricide to a man whose eventual career would end up causing the more than half a million deaths, more than 25000 of them his own soldiers, lives he sacrificed like so many pawns on a chessboard all in the name of his ego? Fed upon homeric legends, modelling itself after his self professed ancestor Achilles, and eventually ascribing him divine status, Alexander's ego dragged him through a life that burned out like a firecracker. Brief and shining, the mere flickering candles of his counterparts paling in comparison.
Alexander was a brilliant general, but a very bad statesman. He knew how to conquer territory but not how to keep it. That is not to say that he didn't try. He married his Macedonian forces to Persian women but they divorced them as soon as Alexander died. He built several cities named Aexandria all over his territories but only one of them survives today. He conquered most of the known world from the Mediterranean to the Himalayas but his generals and attendants carved up his territory no sooner his corpse started to cool. Ptolemy took Egypt and Cassander, a Macedonian politician, murdered Olympias, Alexander's wife Roxane, and his infant son in the course of usurping the power of Greece and Macedonia for his father Antipater.
Alexander died of alcohol poisoning, he was thirty three. Given to mass consumption of wine in the best of times, Alexander binged to his death after Haphaistion, his longtime lover, general and friend passed away. But before his last two years of life disintegrated into ill health, dissipation and madness (it ultimately got to a point where he demanded from all his subjects; the Persians were used to this but the Macedonian balked at it, he meted out death as a punishment for the smallest crimes and ignored larger offenses and was increasingly convinced of his godlike invncibility) Alexander did enough to secure a reputation as, to quote Cantor, 'the cynosure of antiquity' a supreme hero. It was true that he was fortunate in the weakness and incompetence of the Person emperor Darius 3, he also encountered stiff resistance from the princes of Punjab, and was not invincible. But I quote:
'What gained Alexander his posthumous reputation was the kind of man he was, irrespective of military strategy and tactics. He was like those athletes at the quadrennial Olympic Games who stripped naked covered themselves with olive oil. He, too, stood before the world naked and fierce, a beautiful man among other beautiful men, but with incomparable capacity for leadership and for showing the world his strength, intelligence and guile.'
Hannibal called him the greatest general the world had seen, 'because with a small force he had defeated armies of immense proportions and penetrated to the ends of the earth, which human beings had never expected to visit '.
So was Alexander truly great? That obviously depends on your perspective and what qualities you think a truly great person should have. The most objective thing I can say about Alexander the Great was that he was iconic, and that his story gives me a lot to think about.
And what better book to read about him than this? At 120 pages, it is short and concise, but still packs an absorbing narrative and plenty of detail and references. Its perfect for a person who just wants a quick overview of all the facts and myths minus the dramatics, imagined romanticism and acute information overload that authors feel inclined to add in order to fatten up their volumes. A sad feature of plenty of non fiction out there today. Norman Cantor gives exactly what a novice to the classical world is looking for.. A short, concise introduction to the life and times of one of its most iconic figures. With plenty of pointers to where you can find more details and go to for further study.
Where extensive literature is absent, history is mostly a guessing game. Most of the lore concerning Alexander comes from Plutarch and Arrian, a Roman scholar who wrote some 500 years after his death. His text however, was based on books written closer to the time of this self proclaimed King of Kings, including one by the ill fated Callisthenes, nephew of Aristotle and personal biographer of Alexander, who was executed by the king under dubious charges of treason, his writing coming to an abrupt end (this understandably strained Aexander's relationship with Aristotle, his former teacher).
Only fragments of these original texts remain today and its possible that our notions of Alexander have been colored by incidents and notions of a later time than the classical Greeks'. Just one of the things to keep in mind as we read along, accompanied by Cantor's own brilliant and helpful insights into the nature of Historical study....more
Ernest Hemingway in Paris. Not a single novel to his name, barely twenty five, battling an addiction to horse racing and a new father. Ernest HemingwaErnest Hemingway in Paris. Not a single novel to his name, barely twenty five, battling an addiction to horse racing and a new father. Ernest Hemingway in 1920s Paris; a city just coming up for air after being immersed in a world war; it's high inflation has made living cheap for Americans and it's cultural credentials attract all manner of bohemian intellectuals; all contributing to a brimming cauldron of overheating creativity. Ernest Hemingway, free and poor in Paris, just quitting his job to completely focus on writing and to try and give birth to a novel that will become The Sun Also Rises when he couldn't imagine writing anything remotely as long.
Ernest Hemingway mingling with some of the best and brightest minds of the twentieth century; Pablo Picasso, Ezra Pound, Scott Fitzgerald what have you, when they were all relatively nobodies, still growing into the personalities that would spawn their cult followings in decades to come. All together in Paris; meeting at cafes and salons, going to the races, partying until dawn, traveling in trains, eating picnic lunches, and drinking copious amounts of wine; reading each other's work, teaching each other and grimly determined to do nothing but pursue the written word. Perhaps going through the very experiences that would be their making.
Many decades later, before A Movable Feast was written. Hem was sitting in Paris at the Ritz; a bar that used to be too expensive for him, talking to a waiter he used to know from the twenties and trying to recall what Scott Fitzgerald was like when they first ran into each other and he says 'I am going to write something about him in a book that I will write about the early days in Paris, I promised myself that I would write it'. And write it he did, and he did it well, as he usually tends to.
There is no writer whom I've wanted to emulate more than Hemingway. Everytime I read one of his books I find my style subtly changing. I use simpler words, casual almost childlike sentences and less punctuation. I eschew complicated adjectives and try to do this thing that he does, where he uses words like a dimensional gateway, not so much describing as using a strange alchemy to paint elaborate portraits with just a few pencil strokes. But alas, it is no use. Hemingway wouldn't be Hemingway if every Tom, Dick, and Abdul Halik could emulate him at a whim. Instead all we can do is marvel at the unfolding pages as we get lost inside them....more
I leafed through this volume, a collection of essays and pieces of journalism from the long career of Hitchens, dipping in here and there. I have neveI leafed through this volume, a collection of essays and pieces of journalism from the long career of Hitchens, dipping in here and there. I have never been a fan of him before, or it be more correct to say that he never really crossed my radar before. But i found myself really appreciating his sardonic wit and his highly intelligent, efficient and somewhat sly approach to putting across an argument. I don't agree with all of the man's opinions. But fully appreciate the quality of his journalistic approach. ...more
A mere 400 hundred years after the demise of the Prophet (pbuh) the political fragmentation of the Islamic world had already begun, and continued in tA mere 400 hundred years after the demise of the Prophet (pbuh) the political fragmentation of the Islamic world had already begun, and continued in the centuries after. The Muslim ummah, once united along lines of faith, has over these centuries disintegrated into more than seventy small states with innumerable mutual disagreements and conflicts. Indeed, writes Taha Jabir al ‘Alwani in The Ethics of Disagreement in Islam, these differences are at the root of the crisis, by all means an intellectual one, which has affected the Islamic world and brought it to deplorable levels from its onetime glory.
Disagreement in religious matters is nothing new, nor is it something abhorred or prohibited in Islam. Indeed it is the legacy of the prophet (pbuh), who gave enough knowledge to ensure we do not fail in our belief and just enough room to maneuver to enable humans to mould, suit and adjust God’s religion to the varying challenges that the twists of temporal and geographical settings were bound to impose upon us. Therefore it is in the very nature of Islam that disagreements and varying interpretations in minor matters occur due to the differences in intellect, perspective and perceptions of human beings, who are a diverse lot living in diverse times. This is how Islam, being the perfect religion of Allah most high, moulds itself to the differences among us as Muslims.
A historical glimpse at the disagreements between believers reveals a multifaceted picture. Disagreements that happened among the companions during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) were referred to the Prophet (pbuh) himself and dealt with by him. But after the Prophet (pbuh)’s time and the reign of the Rightly Guided caliphs a number of factions began to appear in the region of Iraq; among them the Khawarizites, Shia, Jamiyah and Mu’tazila. These years were rife with false and fabricated Hadith, and with opportunistic and politically motivated interpretations of the Shari’ah. It was during these years that scholars came together in a valiant effort to put right the declining standards of Islamic Law. And thus were born the four madhabs, or schools of Islamic Jurisprudence; Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi and Hanbali.
The four madhabs had varying methodologies and summarizes their main characteristics and scientific reasoning and logic. Of the four madhabs of the imams Malik, al Shafi’I, ibn Hanbal and Abu Hanifah the latter inclined more strongly towards techniques of independent reasoning while the first three stuck more closely to the literal interpretations of the Prophetic traditions and the activities of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.
By discussing first the history of disagreement in religious matters among the companions, then of the successors (taabi’un) and then of the four imams, Al Alwani drives home the main point of this book; Disagreements and differences in views occurred even among these righteous individuals but, rather than creating strife and bad blood, the way they handled their differences and responded to each other enriched discourse and religious thought, in turn increasing overall benefit to society. In later centuries however, these same inevitable differences contributed untold strife, misery and mayhem within the ummah.
So why it is that differences that occurred among these early proponents of Islam created a unifying effect while creating such carnage and strife in later times? People change and attitudes change, and unfortunately this includes attitudes towards religion. As wealth poured into the Islamic empire and power became commoditized, the light of imaan began to fade as most Muslims� lives began to be dominated more and more by worldly goals. And so, to cut to the chase, the basic difference between scholars, rulers and ordinary Muslims then and now can be summed up with one word, Taqwa. Fear of Allah, faith.
The four imams understood that varying interpretations were inevitable, and respected the differing interpretations of their counterparts concerning small matters as reminders of their own fallibility and humbleness before the all knowing, almighty Allah. It is only when attitudes changed as faith lost precedence to material gains that there was a shift in the very motives of jurists. It was then that arrogance raised its head, as jurists saw personal benefit in discrediting a competitor for a particular post. This gradually turned the arena of religious discourse into a battlefield of burning arguments and crashing egos.
This transition happened as the administration of the ummah gradually split along lines of politics and doctrine. That is to say, religion and politics began to be practiced separately. In the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs politics and doctrine were one. Faith was government and government was faith. In those early years rulers hardly consulted jurists in matters of administration because by and large the rulers were more than qualified to make those judgments themselves. But as power was gradually usurped by a more self serving, ambitious variety of political player the ummah witnessed an ever widening split between intellectual and political leadership.
These political leaders, in order for their rule to gain credibility, courted respected jurists with offers of high administrative posts and social status. And even though the more steadfast among these jurists resisted the trappings of power and politics, there arose in subsequent generations an increasing number of aspiring jurists who were more and more tempted by the potential worldly benefits obtainable from religious knowledge. Jurists started courting rulers for position and money instead of it being the other way about. And thereby many of them found the need to subvert religious exactness to fit the desires of their ruling patronage.
As a result more and more verdicts were given without proper religious evidences. Punishments for crimes were reduced or increased as jurists, or their sponsors, saw fit. Exploring loopholes and stratagems to find ways out of punishments became a special skill, and the law of Allah was subverted. Jurists started operating much like how the lawyers of the present operate in today’s secular legal climate. Along with leniency, unnecessary and unsanctioned strictness appeared as another extreme. Take the example of the Andalusian monarch who asked the Maliki jurist Yahya ibn Yahya the consequences of intercourse with his wife during the daytime of Ramadan. He was told that he had to fast for two consecutive months. When asked why the jurist had not told the monarch of the more lenient option of freeing a slave, he replied that the punishment would not mean much to the monarch since he was capable of freeing hundreds of people from bondage.
This abuse of ijtihad (or independent ruling) caused a fear of how far this corruption would go unless its flow was checked and a solution to protect the ummah from the vagaries of ignorance was sought. The answer was to resort to the rulings of previous jurists and this meant following the four main madhabs of the imams Malik, Hanbal, Abu Hanifa and Shafi’i.
But this approach too had its unforeseen negative consequences; again as a result of a lack of faith and a proactive quest for religious knowledge on the part of the ummah. As the ummah increasingly ‘outsourced� their religious knowledge to the verdicts of the four madhabs, they neglected to engage in a constant personal journey of enlightenment and consequently ended up being blind followers of these earlier madhabs. In other words, the low levels of public knowledge in matters pertaining to Shari’ah assisted the emergence of taqlid, or the blind following without knowledge, of these schools of thought. Taqlid, coupled with the reemergence of clan loyalties, or asabiyya, provoked discord and distrust among various factions of the ummah. And conflict arose between followers of the various madhabs who ironically forgot that the founders of those madhabs themselves often showed deep respect to each other’s schools of thought, and learned much from each other.
Therefore, a gradual erosion of knowledge and faith and an improper implementation of the Shari’ah in daily lives began to turn positive disagreement and friendly discourse into negative arguing, wrangling and hatred among the ummah. Often over minor matters that were far removed from the main tenets of Islam.
Centuries passed, the Islamic Civilization continued to erode through the flowering of the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution and increasing European interests overseas abounded. Because it was divided and intellectually confused, the colonists found it easy to infiltrate and finally topple the Ottoman Empire, the last bastion of Islamic rule in the Middle East. The colonialists followed an active strategy to gradually erode the faith even further. Religious education was discouraged, strong social and material incentives were provided to block the pathways leading to religious education all over the colonial world including Asia and Africa. And today, decades after our colonial rulers have taken flight; much of the ummah is still fumbling through the darkness of Taqlid, seemingly with no intention of finding its way back to the light.
Ethics of Disagreement in Islam is basically a call to action. The responsibility for the revival of the ummah lies not with the scholars alone but upon individual Muslims. Until there is a collective effort to seek knowledge on the part of every Muslim, the ummah will always be subject to ignorance, nonsensical disagreement and internal strife. In Ethics of Disagreement in Islam the message is not so much that disagreement is bad in itself, but disagreement must be based on sincere intellectual conviction, humility, and deep study. ...more
A good primer on the basic precepts of Islamic economics. Some of the chapters on more complex issues like limited liability seemed more based on authA good primer on the basic precepts of Islamic economics. Some of the chapters on more complex issues like limited liability seemed more based on authors speculation, but this is probably because (as laid out by the author himself) research in these areas are scant....more
Great book on the seerah of the Prophet (pbuh). What sets it apart from the rest is its scientific method of analysis as opposed to the often adopted Great book on the seerah of the Prophet (pbuh). What sets it apart from the rest is its scientific method of analysis as opposed to the often adopted narrative in the form of a story that you see in other books of seerah.
Those books generally pick and choose historical sources to preserve their narrative integrity, resulting sometimes in slightly varying accounts of some incidents in the Prophet (pbuh)'s life. What Al Umari does is incorporate all those varying accounts into one fluid narrative that is at once engrossing as well as academic.
It's a good idea to read this after you read a famous account of the seerah in a format given to narrative flair, my personal recommendation would be Martin Lings' excellent tome Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. This will probably give you some perspective to work with when reading this. At least, it helped me.
Akram Al Diya Al Umari starts off by giving a once over to his approach, and i think approach is the most innovative and refreshing thing about this book. He emphasizes the need for Islamic scholarship to adopt a Western outlook to historical analysis, developing a scientific approach to analyse the relevance of various sources and the justification of the adoption of one alternative account as opposed to another.
To do this he uses the centuries old methods perfected by hadith scholars and develops a book with an engrossing account of the Prophet(pbuh)'s life with a perspective very broad in its horizons, if only because he manages to skillfully incorporate the varying accounts and varying histories into something that is a cross between a novel and an academic paper. An amazing achievement, and all praise is due to Allah. ...more
Loved the tome. Murakami puts into words pieces of running insight so eloquently that the moment i finished the book, i grabbed my shoes and hit the aLoved the tome. Murakami puts into words pieces of running insight so eloquently that the moment i finished the book, i grabbed my shoes and hit the asphalt. I stopped for a bit cause my shoes were giving me trouble, and i need to make some huaraches (or barefoot runners) probably but that is unimportant.
I used to run in the beach at my old home before, and loved it. There is something glorious about simply moving your feet one after the other, propelling yourself through the air, pretty soon you barely feel in contact with the ground. When you're in form it feels like floating. Your mind is blank and yet it feels like a master computer, completely aware of your body and its immediate surroundings. You are self consumed, and the feeling is the closest I've come to actual meditation.
Murakami has been running for decades. And is a much more seasoned runner than little old me. His language is so simple and insights so deep and sudden that they have the effect of a punch in the stomach. Murakami runs a marathon every year, and has inspired me to run one at least once insha Allah. There is such a thing called the Colombo Marathon for those interested in Sri Lanka, google it up.
I don't know if non-runners will find this interesting. and i don't know how this compares to Murakami's other work, since i've never read any, but i can vouchsafe to this book being absolutely spiffing, old boy. Give it a go, and hit the beach.
Handy little book on economic terms. but ultimately useless as a reference book to anyone who has access to the internet. I found that some phrases weHandy little book on economic terms. but ultimately useless as a reference book to anyone who has access to the internet. I found that some phrases were insufficiently explained, and others were completely missing. But great if you want to learn a little more about complex economic concepts in layman's alnguage. Everything is neatly placed and explained. Good investment for an econ student i must say....more
“From following desires comes desire for this world, and from desire of this world comes love of wealth and status, and from love of wealth and status“From following desires comes desire for this world, and from desire of this world comes love of wealth and status, and from love of wealth and status comes making lawful that which is forbidden.�
- Ibn Munabbih
Quite a handy little booklet that reminds you in no uncertain terms of the fleeting illusion of existence and the utter folly of selling your soul for meager exchange. It is not wrong in Islam to seek wealth, but to seek it at the expense of the religion is surely a loss. And we are not only talking about earning money through unlawful means, excessive craving for wealth even via lawful means is frowned upon.
Similarly status and hunger for power can take away a person's belief before he knows it. The book strongly advises against seeking after positions of power. It mentions several instances when the Prophet (pbuh) denied giving positions of power and status to those who asked for them, maintaining that power is never something one must seek out but instead should only accept after grave thought if it is put upon them.
Seeking religious knowledge can also breed corruption and evil. IF that knowledge has been sought not for the sake of Allah but for the sake of showing off to the people and attempting to influence them for personal gain. Similarly asceticism and ostentatious display of an urge to remove oneself from the world is also considered to be showing off. Islam is emphasized as being of the middle path and gives equal emphasis on the need to fulfill worldly obligations as well as immerse oneself in religion.
The book is beautifully organized and Hadeeth and Quranic evidences are given for the points discussed. Its a concise and clear introduction to the topic....more
I think four stars to the Audiobook because it omits a few important aspects that are included in the latest edition of the print version. But a greatI think four stars to the Audiobook because it omits a few important aspects that are included in the latest edition of the print version. But a great listen nevertheless. Sean Barrett's voice and his little verbal nuances and changes in tone make lively company.
Five stars to the book as a whole though. Martin Lings has stuck primarily to the most authentic and credible sources in the drafting of his biography of the Prophet of Islam. The book is in no way 'dry' as some reviews accuse. Lings was a convert to Islam and his deep love for the prophet and his understanding of the nature of the religion resonate throughout the tale. Which is as spiritual as it is factual.
In the printed text he does not shy away from talking about events that took place in the Prophet's time that non-Muslims consider controversial. Mainly the Prophet (peace be upon him)'s marriage to Ayesha and the execution of the men of the Jewish tribe of Banu Khuraiza. But, though he is in no way an apologist, I do wish he could have spent more time on those issues to make them clearer to non-Muslims. But the fact that he does address them are extremely positive.
Too many modern Islamic works try to brush past these issues and treat them lightly. But this is negative to the image of the religion. Muslims consider all of the Prophet (pbuh)'s actions fully justified and sanctioned by God. And indeed, to be a true Muslim by definition, one must stand by every action of the Prophet (pbuh). And tiptoeing around historical facts in the fear of provoking the reactionary attention of narrow minded antagonistic elements is defeatist strategy. It simply facilitates the fabrication and the spread of lies. These lies turn non-Muslims, who aren't usually exposed to the Muslim's viewpoint, against Islam and foster hate and prejudice.
Another point is that these issues cannot be treated lightly. And dismissing them in a sentence or two is an injustice not only to the prophet of Islam but also to empirical science. It requires a concerted study of the historical context. And, if anyone should sincerely want to know more about Muhammad (pbuh) and have answered questions about his history, there should easily be available to him or her reliable sources dealing with these particular issues concerning the prophet. Not that there aren't any such resources available. They just aren't widely known, being largely kept out of the mainstream Muslim-Non-Muslim discourse, or that is as far as I am aware.
But i seem to have digressed. To wrap up. Excellent start if you want to know more about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Be you a Muslim or non-Muslim. (Do hit me up if you need a link or two to the text).
The phrase '...the internet has on our brains' reminds me of zombies. In The Shallows Nicholas Carr discusses the affect the Internet has on our brai The phrase '...the internet has on our brains' reminds me of zombies. In The Shallows Nicholas Carr discusses the affect the Internet has on our brains. And he pretty much thinks we are turning into zombies.
He first pooh poohs the alarmist ideas earlier communication technology philosophers had about the debilitating effects of (in reverse chronological order) the TV, the radio, the type writer, the printing press, reading silently, the book and even writing (Those who rely on reading for their knowledge will “seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing.� They will be “filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom.�) back up to the time when men needed to remember everything to be in the know, and then comes up with an alarmist idea of his own:
"THE INTERNETZ IS EATING YOUR BRAIN!!"
Or rather, it is eating up our thought processes. Filling us with shallower knowledge. Externalizing our memories. Reducing our capacity for intelligent deduction.
"What we’re trading away in return for the riches of the Net—and only a curmudgeon would refuse to see the riches—is... “our old linear thought process.� Calm, focused, undistracted, the linear mind is being pushed aside by a new kind of mind" - the Internet mind?
Now i get distracted on the internet as much as any other person. In fact i have stopped writing this review and returned to it about 3 times already. It has come to a point where i can scarecely work if im plugged into the net. Its annoying really. You know you're not important enough to get an email every minute but you check anyway. Facebook updates aren't going anywhere but you keep checking in some bizarre social-network OCD. The internet pickles your mind so much that you can spend an hour on it and it will feel like 15 minutes, and worse; you won't even have achieved anything in that time. Its a black hole alright, a black hole that drags in your attention and time.
But even so, i think the notion that the Internet spells a unique death to intelligence and thought is somewhat far fetched. And may be one of Carr's more spectacular claims. Indeed most of the evidence brought to bear on brain activity seems to indicate that the grey matter in our heads is uniquely plastic, and extremely adaptable. So who is to say it won't eventually adapt to a world of technology and internet as well?
Parts i liked about the book
1. The heavy chit chat about the human brain, synapses, plasticity and the way it facilitates information flow. The different areas of the brain used in language and information processing.
2. The bits about memory and how its construction. Long term memory versus short term, the unique way the brain uses memory to mull over, analyze and make deductions based on knowledge (Carr says this capacity is especially threatened if we are outsourcing memory to computers). I can now confidently say a thing or two about the Hippocampus and cortices. And no the former is not a higher education institute for large bull shaped amphibians.
3. The discussion on the history of books and the advancement of the written knowledge. Basically a tale of increased knowledge with diminishing mental capacity to hold it all. Although i found his thoughts on ebooks rather speculative and alarmist again.
4. The chapter on Google. Carr inevitably paints Google as almost an arch villain to traditional intelligence, with its manic drive to compartmentalize information and feed us 'shallow' search paragraphs. In fact the idea for the book came from an article Carr wrote titled ''
Carr argues that all the clutter and distraction of the internet is making it hard for us to concentrate for long enough on a single task (like reading text) for us to absorb it enough to ensure that it passes from being mere information to proper knowledge. His question is whether all the mucking about clicking links and checking mail is destroying our cognitive ability to gain knowledge.
And I agree with him. To a certain extent. I don't think it is a social phenomena that we have to be a the mercy of though. The internet has good and bad, and if you can't take the good and leave out the bad it reflects badly on you, and maybe you do deserve to become stupider than you are. Turn off your email, turn off your PC, go read a book. Try and read a book which disses the internet, like this one. ...more
I've always been curious about the world of the Jinn. That secret, invisible race that shares the world we live in. Often I've wondered if they live oI've always been curious about the world of the Jinn. That secret, invisible race that shares the world we live in. Often I've wondered if they live on a parallel plane, or are they separated from us by a thin veil of space fabric that is easily breached at will? The scientific questions regarding the existence of the Jinn boggled my mind.
Solomon had power over them, they heeded his every ask. They also have mad skills when it comes to construction and travel. They can change shapes and travel through space. The jinn are made of fire, but they are no less open flames than we are walking mounds of clay. The mystery of Allah's creation is in how He made us from base elements and the essences of these substances.
They may not be immediately visible to man, but man appears to them. Though they seem capable of ignoring us and leading their existences the way they would. The jinn are here for the same purpose that we are; to worship Allah and win our way back into Paradise, where the Huri await with golden pools for eyes and the gardens beneath which rivers ebb and rise.
Chapter 51 (Sura Al Dhariyat), Verse 56 in the Quran: "And I have not created jinni and mankind except that they should serve Me."
However there is a dark side to proceedings. Satan,that arch enemy of all that is good, was a Jinn. I do not know if this affects the race of jinn in any way, but Satan employs the Jinn to carry out his dirty work.
The term Satan or 'Shaitan' in Arabic is simply used to denote a mischievous demon, and so is used to describe all Jinn who try to lure mankind away from the Straight Path, which is Islam. The Big Satan is known as Iblees in the Quran, but it isn't clear if this is his given name. By the way, don't let the term 'Mischievous' fool you there about the shaitans, these are not adorable pixies trying to tempt you to invade the cookie jar. These beings personify evil and everything that is black in your soul, but to that in a moment.
So, about Iblees. He is The Fallen Angel of Biblical lore, except of course he is no angel, and never was. Allah tells us that angels are beings made of light, they have no distinction between wrong and right, and they cannot choose to defy Him.
Iblees though, was of the Jinn, as is mentioned in Surah Al-Kahf, and he had a conscience. And was capable of defying his Lord if he wanted to do so. He had risen to a position of honor in the eyes of his Lord. He threw that all away however, when he chose to rebel rather than bow down to Adam (peace be upon him), and hence was flung out of the heavens and condemned.
“Chapter 18 (Sura al-Kahf) Verse 20 in the Quran: And remember when we said unto the angels: Fall prostrate before Adam, and they fell prostrate, all save Iblees. He was of the Jinn, so he rebelled against his Lord’s command”.
The rest of course, is history. We know what happens next. Iblees extracts a promise from Allah allowing him to stay on Earth as long as it exists. And he in turn vows to never rest until he has turned every single human that walks the planet away from paradise, which is promised only to the righteous.
And thus begins the age old battle between Shaitan and man. Between good and evil, between darkness and light. Told and retold in many a form, this theme recurs throughout out culture. Be it in Harry Potter, The Lord of The Rings, The Odessey or the Illiad or The Ramayana there is always a dualism, always a positive and a negative, always a fight between good and bad.
These battles are mental as much as physical. Could Frodo have reached mount Doom if his virtue had lacked the fortitude to withstand Sauron's psychedelic trickery? Would Odesseus have resisted the Sirens or any of the other supervillains he ended up overcoming if his mind had not been of a singular will?
Similarly, it is not for idle horseplay the Shaitan try to deceive us. It is not for trivialities such as Hogwarts, Middle Earth or your two story flat near Fairfield Gardens that they harry us along every step of our path. This battle we fight is for something greater. It is for our very souls, our very destinies and eternal lives. Iblees tricked Adam (pbuh) and caused him to leave paradise, and with him he condemned all his descendants to life on Earth. And if he has his way, he will drag all of us down into an eternity of hell.
And he has his work cut out for him. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said “"Satan flows in the children of Adam like the flowing of the blood.“’" and yes indeedy, he is that close. He is the sneaking whisperer telling you to prolong your Salah just a little bit longer, and he hangs by your shoulder whispering sweet nothings trying to distract you while you pray. To each of us he has assigned an agent, our very own personal Shaitan, charged with ambushing our progress.
"“There is none among you except that he has a partner entrusted to him from among the jinn.”" - Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
There are weapons to fight them of course, the Shaitan may never harm the soul of the pious. Ultimately it lies upon each of our individual shoulders, we are responsible for our own souls. It is we who decide to be taken in by the devious machinations of the devils, and it is also we who decide to fight them. We may fail sometimes, and we may fall hard trying. Or we may become tempted and lose our way for sometime. But none of that matters if we fight back. There is hope until the very last.
"“If you were not to commit sins, Allah would take you away and replace you with a people that would make sins and seek Allah’s forgiveness and He would forgive them" Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) narrated by Muslim.
All this i gained from this valuable tome (though the pop culture references were mine 0. And yet i have only brushed the surface of the wealth of knowledge it contains. May Allah forgive me if i have made any mistakes. Highly recommended to anyone remotely curious about the topic. I have uploaded the PDF version on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ (insha Allah shaikh al-Ashqar won't mind:), so please do download and have a good read!...more
The first of 3 books dealing with death, the after life and heaven and hell. The minor resurrection talks about what happens during the process of deaThe first of 3 books dealing with death, the after life and heaven and hell. The minor resurrection talks about what happens during the process of death in its first half, while dedicating the second half to talking about the signs of the Last Day.
Muslims believe in a Day of Judgement. You may call it apocalypse, or the End of Days or whatever. That is essentially the same thing. Muslims also believe in certain signs of the Last Day that will take place between the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Last Day. Some of these signs have already taken place, and are taking place currently. While others haven't happened yet. There are also ten major signs that will happen immediately before the day of judgement including the emergence of the pseudo-christ (or antichrist), the coming of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the hordes of Gog and Magog.
In the part where the book talks about what happens immediately after death, Dr. Al-Ashqar discusses the concept of the soul, what happens to the soul after death and the torments and struggles one can expect in when your soul is in limbo (essentially a state called 'barzakh' where you are not alive and yet not resurrected to stand before God on the last day).
Hadeeth (the traditions of the Prophet pbuh) and Quranic verses are used as a basis for the book and there has obviously been a lot of effort put in to research. Al-Ashquar also presents various other views held by different sects and analyzes their underlying premises and evidence bases. Overall i thought it was quite an objective look at these areas. The tone is academic yet conversational and the book clips along at a fair pace. There are helpful appendices at the back that give reference lists, Arabic translations etc. ...more
A really great guide to literature for a noob like me. Foster goes through some common elements of symbolism. Like what does it mean when characters bA really great guide to literature for a noob like me. Foster goes through some common elements of symbolism. Like what does it mean when characters break bread together? when it rains? when there is water? flight? violence? He talks about all these and many other things.
A more advanced student of literature may find this a bit basic. But the book is not targeted at advanced students. It has already made me start thinking in terms of intertextuality, symbolic meaning, allegory and mythical references. Also, i think its increased my hunger to learn more about literature.
Usually i'm suspicious when a book claims to be 'lively and entertaining' on the cover. But Foster really is lively and entertaining. And his enthusiasm for the subject is obvious and infectious. The book is extraordinarily well structured and there is a helpful test case at the end including a final recommended reading list. Full points....more
The book gives a good overview of the Wikileaks situation to date. Its more of a blatant attempt bythe Guardian to cash in on the Julian Assange dramaThe book gives a good overview of the Wikileaks situation to date. Its more of a blatant attempt bythe Guardian to cash in on the Julian Assange drama one feels, rather than an attempt to give a heretofore unseen side of the Wikileaks story.
Most of the book deals with the documented story of Wikileaks, only more analytically and with a level of perspective that has built up over the ensuing months. It also takes a bit of a dim view of Assange himself and one can sense a clear vein of arrogance that constantly seeks to downplay the efforts of Wikileaks and Assange and highlight the work of the Guardian in bringing the whole thing to light. Therefore it is less the story of Wikileaks itself and more the story of 'this Wikileaks business' from the rather self-righteous outlook of The Guardian.
But still, i wouldn't say the book is filled with lies and slander, far from it. The Guardian lives up to its reputation for good journalism and tries to remain objective and open to reason despite its constant monkey-praising-its-own-tail self congratulatory tone.
Gaga in the Desert
The tale starts with the disillusioned Bradley Manning, a computer operator in Iraq, who gets frustrated with the politics of the Iraqi war when it dawns on him that the values the US stands for there are only concerned with integrity so long as they helped further US interests. Simultaneously he realizes that the computer department he works in has very bad security and finds out that he can write classified files by burning them onto his Lady Gaga CD (a bizarre image, a desert dust battered army trailer room with battle hardened soldiers listening to Lady Gaga, but Manning wasn't a fighting man. He was highly idealistic, opinionated and smart, with a mopey childhood and homosexual tendencies).
To get back to the point Manning then tries to figure out a way of doing some 'good' with the data he has found because he has come to realize that large amounts of the information are things that the 'people should know about'. Enter Assange, who Manning hears about because of the former's rapidly growing popularity as a result of the work of Wikileaks in exposing the corrupt activities of African, European and other governments. Manning soon gets in touch through the equivalent of underground comm lines in the internet and the rest is baked cheesecake.
Death tolls, civilian casualties (including children), extra-judicial killings, hit squads etc were all packed away in the bits of data relating to the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts that were finally released through Wikileaks. Whereas the US previously claimed not to have specific figures for the number of dead in the wars, the final figure for Iraq was exposed as being somewhere between 100,000-108,000. Every single one of these deaths were meticulously recorded by soldiers filling out post-battle reports. Many other juicy details were also put out for the public consumption. The most controversial of all released data were the cables that were sent from US embassies around the world back to Washington, finally causing the US to sit up and take notice, and they were very, very ticked off. Manning was arrested and jailed. he is pending trial and will possibly face long years in prison, if not the death penalty for treason.
'Hacktivist'
Anyway if you've been following the news with half a ear, you already know this. So lets stick to the book itself. We are treated to a brief overview of Assange's vegabond, peripatetic childhood and his subsequent metamorphosis into a young father and unberhacker. It is through his hacking that Assange first comes into contact with the law, from the wrong side, and he does not like what he sees. His subsequent disillusionment with justice and governments is what leads to his conviction that 'all information must be free' and Wikileaks. he essentially becomes a hacker with a cause, a hacktivist.
Now enters the Guardian as an opportunistic Main Stream Media (the MSM is portrayed as highly derided by new media) element swooping in for the jackpot. Its editors strike up deals with Assange, who also brings in Der Spiegel and the New York Times, and set about analyzing, breaking down and narrativizing the think chunks of almost incomprehensible numbers and other data that was pratically 'dumped' by Manning on Assange. This proves to be a complex task and the experienced team of mainstream journalists take months to carefully sift through, contextualize, redact (where needed to protect lives)and break down what would otherwise have been a meaningless pile of numbers, acronyms and random figures.
This task could only have been done by experienced journalists and this is consequently where the Guardian's smugness shines out the most. At one point, elaborating on the glories of MSM journalists, it gushes 'they could be the genuine information professionals, standing out in an otherwise worthless universe of internet froth'. Except of course, they couldn't. 'Cablegate' and the 'biggest journalistic scoop since the the Pentagon Papers and possibly the biggest scoop of all time' would never have been possible without the so called 'internet froth' it so callously refers to.
Moments like that are rare however, and most of the book tries to stick to telling the story as it is. It is only when the authors' (senior Guardian journos both) personal views and observations come frothing to the top that the pith creates a bitter taste in your mouth. Otherwise, Assange is described in rather enigmatic terms. He is a bit of a mystery. But he is also a bit naive, arrogant and hubristic. Highly intelligent and charming, he has a tendency for paranoia and to engage in cloak and dagger behavior.
The book reads like a spy novel and is slightly prone to purplish prose and melodrama here and there. But it was compelling and had me glued until the end. A good journalistic account of the Wikileaks saga so far. It also discusses the allegations of sexual assault leveled at Assange and the ensuing chaos. It ends somewhere before his extradition to Sweden. All in all a good read, but for a more in depth look at the man himself and a behind the scenes look at the inner workings of Wikileaks i daresay we could do worse that wait for Assange's upcoming biography. Rather snortingly described in this book as having 'an ambitions deadline' for April 2011. ...more
It all began, as many things did in this modern spurt of civilization, in ancient Greece. Simonedes was just another philosopher at a banquet, chillinIt all began, as many things did in this modern spurt of civilization, in ancient Greece. Simonedes was just another philosopher at a banquet, chilling out with his friends and quaffing down some wine and olives. The banquet was large and everyone was having a good time, when suddenly a volcano erupted/earthquake happened/mass slaughter ensued and the banquet hall, along with all its inhabitants, was destroyed. Simonedes and a few others survived.
When the relatives of the dead came to take away the remains of their loved, no one new who was who because the corpses were disfigured beyond recognition. Strangely however, Simonedes discovered that with a little bit of effort, he could recall exactly where all the guests were at the moment the destruction happened with near perfect clarity. In this way he hit upon a neat trick to 'remember everything'.
When I read a book, what do I hope will stay with me a year later? If it’s a work of nonfiction, the thesis, maybe, if the book has one. A few savory details, perhaps. If it’s fiction, the broadest outline of the plot, something about the main characters (at least their names), and an overall critical judgment about the book. Even these are likely to fade.
Moonwalking with Einstein is primarily a book about memory. How much do we forget in this day and age? If you are like me, then you definitely forget a lot. I can't keep track of appointments and to do list unless i make a note of them, not cause i'm a flake, well maybe i am a little, but simply because there is just some much to think of. We've drowned ourselves in quantity and outsourced our memories to electronic devices. The machines store our knowledge and we mine them as and when our intelligence requires it.
The book isn't far off when it boasts to talk about 'the art and science of remembering everything'. There is an art and science to it, that much is plain. But it isn't easy to master. To Illustrate Joshua Foer looks at sporting activity right out of the pages of C.S. Lewis; where hordes of earnest competitors set out to fight it out to see who can remember the best. They memorize multiple card packs, epic poems and random lists of binary, numbers and words.
Now this may seem strangely pointless. Sure, if a bunch of eccentrics want to get together and do that then good luck to em, right? Foer makes it clear that this isn't a book about helping you to remember better. Neither one that promises you gratuitous gains at the expense of five minutes a day of effort. The book is about Foer's dabbling in memory sport. A chance visit to a memory sporting event intrigues him and before he knows it, he is training for the US memory championship.
Aside from all the crazy characters he runs into and the interest he piques in the reader in memory sport what stuck with me most is the smattering of tips and tricks i'm left with to improve my memory. When it comes down to its bones, like a lot of modern pop-science and non-fiction, the book is a lot of salad dressing around a few key messages. And the key-est (i made that up) message i come away with is the construction and use of the Memory Palace.
The Memory Palace is purely a mental thing. The trick is remarkably simple, and akin to methods we often use sub-consciously already. Say you want to remember a list. You confer each of the items on your list with a unique, very memorable image. And then you lay them along a familiar path or in key locations in a mental landscape of your childhood home, or grandparents house.
They key science here is that the human brain is more capable of remembering and recalling visual and spacial data than anything else. This method is insanely effective. I was studying for my Project management paper while reading this and easily converted quite a few tedious lists into items in memory palaces and remembered them with ease at my paper, Alhamdulillah. The only problem of course is that once you've built a palace, and committed something to memory in it, cleaning it out for reuse can be a tricky business. Foer mentions the possibility of this, but does not tell you how.
Another is that the more things you need to remember, the more palaces you'll have to find. And the more buildings you'll have to be familiar with. Foer in preparation for the US Memory Championships, visited several new buildings in order to remember the hellish data he was about to download into his brain.
For the rest of us, memory palaces can be of most help during exams. At least thats the best use iv put them to so far. There are also ways and means of remembering numbers and poems and prose verbatim. The former is a matter of assigning sounds to each number and then forming these sounds into syllables and visual symbols to corroborate with numbers you want to remember. Its less complicated than it sounds.
But ultimately, how many things must we remember? I for one feel that i lose most of what goes into my head, and am only left with a vague imprint of books that i have read. That's why putting your impressions into words my help. And that's one of the reasons i like reviewing a book after I've read it. Whether it really helps me retain a little more of it, or if it simply provides the illusion of retention and placates my ego, i am yet to figure out.
Once upon a time, there was nothing to do with thoughts except remember them. There was no alphabet to transcribe them in, no paper to set them down upon. Anything that had to be preserved had to be preserved in memory. Any story that would be retold, any idea that would be transmitted, any piece of information that would be conveyed, first had to be remembered.
That meant that the ancient Greeks had smashing memories. And the techniques and tricks they developed to sharpen them were given the same level of importance as other knowledge. What students were taught they were also taught to remember. And the human brain is such that we are far more intelligent if we remember things than if we have to google stuff every five minutes or so in the middle of discussing something with a friend.
We have made 'a switch from “intensive� to “extensive� reading' that has helped us know more, but remember less. ...more
Loading...
