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?
There have been many problems because of the tribes in the history of Islam. The first problems arose at the beginning of the religion when Mohammed was gaining followers, and these tribal tensions arose when picking a new leader or making a decision.
Mohammed was the first muslim to deal with tribal problems. When he was rising, the tribes saw this as a threat to their leadership and tried to kill him and his followers many times. The tribes in his time also created problems in early Islam by kicking his followers out of their tribe, so that they would get no protection. When Mohammed died and Abu Bakr was named the new caliph, it stirred up dormant trouble. The first issue was that the Medinians and Meccans argued about who was to become the new caliph and the second problem was that tribes which were unified under Mohammed tried to break off under the new government.
The next trial was the naming of the succesor of 'Umar. The council that named the next caliph was made up of only men from the tribe of Quraysh, while the Medinians where shut off from power. Also, the two candidates for the next caliph were of two different tribes. When the less popular one was named, small cracks started to form in Islam's unity. This one was killed and the other one was named, but tribe member of the former rose up against the latter, and started the Umayyad empire.
One of the Umayyad caliphs, Yazid, started a second civil war with the followers of the descendants of 'Ali, and was killed in the battle. Afterwords, two rival tribes, Qays and the Kalb fought for the next caliph. When the Umayyad caliphate ended a new one started, the 'Abassid caliphate, which where descendants of the uncle of Muhammed. Many people in the Abassid caliphate were muslims, but not members of a tribe and so were treated as second class citizens.
All of these together, caused large problems for the religion of Islam, and the governments over time. These were problems that never stopped. They started in Muhammed's time and still go through today where there are still different factions of Islam, all based off of their ancestor's tribe.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Blog #9
How has the religious history of India influenced India’s tradition of non-violence?
I think that the religions that began in India impacted India's non-violence. Both major religions, for the most part preach peace and that definately affects the government because in many cases the government and the religions were very intertwined. Throughout history Buddhism and Hinduism have been trying to get more followers, but rather than forced conversions or killing, these religions would convert peacefully. They would atract followers by persuasion or perceived rights, then they would become lax and the other religion would grow back. This would be mirrored in the governments which pretty much allowed freedom of religion and held the reigns very loosely.
I think that the religions that began in India impacted India's non-violence. Both major religions, for the most part preach peace and that definately affects the government because in many cases the government and the religions were very intertwined. Throughout history Buddhism and Hinduism have been trying to get more followers, but rather than forced conversions or killing, these religions would convert peacefully. They would atract followers by persuasion or perceived rights, then they would become lax and the other religion would grow back. This would be mirrored in the governments which pretty much allowed freedom of religion and held the reigns very loosely.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Blog #8
Can migration have a positive impact on the native people of the land?
Migration can have a positive impact on the native people through exchange of ideas, beliefs and culture. Migrating people bring with them their culture and god(s). The native people would presumably have one culture while the newcomers would have another, but blended together this big culture could not only make everyone happy, but also unify the country. This is shown in the United States' culture, when migrating people like the irish or jews became assimilated into the culture, but added an extra flavor of their own. When a migrating people bring a religion, it will sometimes spark conflict, but sometimes it will challenge and push the people. If their is no competition, then there is no strive forward. Another thing the migration would bring are an expanded work force and new innovations. The new people might have technology that, when combined with the native's knowledge would make new, better inventions. Also, with more migrators there are more people, creating a larger base of people to tax as well as the ability to expand militarily. All in all, though unusual, a migration could actually be a very good thing for everyone involved.
Migration can have a positive impact on the native people through exchange of ideas, beliefs and culture. Migrating people bring with them their culture and god(s). The native people would presumably have one culture while the newcomers would have another, but blended together this big culture could not only make everyone happy, but also unify the country. This is shown in the United States' culture, when migrating people like the irish or jews became assimilated into the culture, but added an extra flavor of their own. When a migrating people bring a religion, it will sometimes spark conflict, but sometimes it will challenge and push the people. If their is no competition, then there is no strive forward. Another thing the migration would bring are an expanded work force and new innovations. The new people might have technology that, when combined with the native's knowledge would make new, better inventions. Also, with more migrators there are more people, creating a larger base of people to tax as well as the ability to expand militarily. All in all, though unusual, a migration could actually be a very good thing for everyone involved.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
blog #6
"I was really too honest a man to be a politician and live." I like this quote because I find it true. Pretty much all successful politicians lie. Some lie for the people's benefit, like to say your views on war are one way but to lie because your real views are better for the country. A great example of a politician who lied for their country was an Athens politician who lied that he needed a bigger navy to attack an island even though the real reason was that he knew that he had to have a bigger navy to defeat Persia.
The site had taken off the page
can't answer
I think that all children should be separated from birth from their parents. From birth, the children will be sorted and instructed for years what the will need to know for the job that the State plans for them (these could range from having sex to make more babies to mining copper). These different groups would have no contact with each other so people wouldn't no whether they would be missing out on anything because they would be completely ignorant of everything they don't need to know for the advancement of the State. There would be no racial problems, or social problems. People wouldn't have anything that divides, like religion, and everyone would be safe.
We all see things a certain way, but we are probably wrong. In addition, we see things different ways but who is to judge whether the color blue is this color or some other color or even a color at all.
The site had taken off the page
can't answer
I think that all children should be separated from birth from their parents. From birth, the children will be sorted and instructed for years what the will need to know for the job that the State plans for them (these could range from having sex to make more babies to mining copper). These different groups would have no contact with each other so people wouldn't no whether they would be missing out on anything because they would be completely ignorant of everything they don't need to know for the advancement of the State. There would be no racial problems, or social problems. People wouldn't have anything that divides, like religion, and everyone would be safe.
We all see things a certain way, but we are probably wrong. In addition, we see things different ways but who is to judge whether the color blue is this color or some other color or even a color at all.
Friday, November 7, 2008
blog #5
If you were a young teenage girl of the citizen class, in which city-statewould you rather live? Why?
I would rather live in Sparta. I would live in Sparta because then I would get a better education and I would have a higher chance of being not poor.
If you were a slave, in which would you rather live? Why?
If I were a slave, I would rather be in Athens. in Athens, the only people who usually had slaves were the upper class, so I'm assuming they did household jobs and were fed and housed moderately well. In Sparta, slaves worked in the fields.
If you were a boy of the citizen class, in which would you rather live? Why?
I would rather live in Athens. I would grow up to get full rights and my family would probably be stable in terms of money. In Sparta I would be learning how to be a soldier and I might die.
If you were a young soldier, in which would you rather live? Why?
I would rather live in Sparta. I would get better training and I would be in an elite army.
If you were a very wealthy person of the citizen class, in which would yourather live? Why?
I would rather live in Athens. Wealth didn't matter very much to the Spartans. Whereas in Athens, a wealthy person would have time to go to the meetings and be a part in the government.
Finally, decide to represent either Athens or Sparta and debate which is thebest place to live. Use the chart from class to find criticisms of the othercity-state while praising your own.
I would rather live in Athens. In Athens, a citizen could be an important part of the government. In Sparta, they were used as foot soldiers. If I became wealthy in Athens, I could retire, and build a mansion. In Sparta, I would have to stay fit. I also could have traveled in from Athens.
I would rather live in Sparta. I would live in Sparta because then I would get a better education and I would have a higher chance of being not poor.
If you were a slave, in which would you rather live? Why?
If I were a slave, I would rather be in Athens. in Athens, the only people who usually had slaves were the upper class, so I'm assuming they did household jobs and were fed and housed moderately well. In Sparta, slaves worked in the fields.
If you were a boy of the citizen class, in which would you rather live? Why?
I would rather live in Athens. I would grow up to get full rights and my family would probably be stable in terms of money. In Sparta I would be learning how to be a soldier and I might die.
If you were a young soldier, in which would you rather live? Why?
I would rather live in Sparta. I would get better training and I would be in an elite army.
If you were a very wealthy person of the citizen class, in which would yourather live? Why?
I would rather live in Athens. Wealth didn't matter very much to the Spartans. Whereas in Athens, a wealthy person would have time to go to the meetings and be a part in the government.
Finally, decide to represent either Athens or Sparta and debate which is thebest place to live. Use the chart from class to find criticisms of the othercity-state while praising your own.
I would rather live in Athens. In Athens, a citizen could be an important part of the government. In Sparta, they were used as foot soldiers. If I became wealthy in Athens, I could retire, and build a mansion. In Sparta, I would have to stay fit. I also could have traveled in from Athens.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Blog #4 9/22/2008
New ideas in politics and philosophy tend to emerge in times of social, political and/or economic stress. How can this be explained?
People want change in times of trouble so they look to new ideas. When everything is good and stable no new ideas are needed. Barack Obama's slogan is Change We Can Believe In. This country is in a time of trouble so we want change. If Confucius or Daoism had started in a time of peace they wouldn't have been accepted.
People want change in times of trouble so they look to new ideas. When everything is good and stable no new ideas are needed. Barack Obama's slogan is Change We Can Believe In. This country is in a time of trouble so we want change. If Confucius or Daoism had started in a time of peace they wouldn't have been accepted.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Blog Entry #3
Blog Entry #3: Population growth was the most significant development of the Classical Period. True or False?
False, i think that there wasn't a clear single most significant developement of the Classical Period. I think that there were many smaller devolepments but not one that was most important. There were definately a few categories that had significant developments though, these were; farming, urban developement, increased trade, religion, and writing.
The first two on this list are farming and urban developement. They both had alot to do with population growth but in different ways. In farming, the iron plough was invented and more food was produced which may have led to increased population. In urban developement, people moved to cities which became hubs for government and trade.
Increased trade probably started because of greater populations and urban developement but i think it was also increased because governments had formed and sent armies to conquer other lands. In doing so the people of one area would become aware of goods of a different people.
The last two are religion and writing. These both spread knowedge and customs around the world. They also helped people connect to one another. People could be totally different but trust each other because of a common religion or a common way of writing. Both of the things also spread goods around the world and in doing so increased change.
False, i think that there wasn't a clear single most significant developement of the Classical Period. I think that there were many smaller devolepments but not one that was most important. There were definately a few categories that had significant developments though, these were; farming, urban developement, increased trade, religion, and writing.
The first two on this list are farming and urban developement. They both had alot to do with population growth but in different ways. In farming, the iron plough was invented and more food was produced which may have led to increased population. In urban developement, people moved to cities which became hubs for government and trade.
Increased trade probably started because of greater populations and urban developement but i think it was also increased because governments had formed and sent armies to conquer other lands. In doing so the people of one area would become aware of goods of a different people.
The last two are religion and writing. These both spread knowedge and customs around the world. They also helped people connect to one another. People could be totally different but trust each other because of a common religion or a common way of writing. Both of the things also spread goods around the world and in doing so increased change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)