The Road To Makkah ( Muhammad Asad ) free essay sample

A critical review of the Muslim authors autobiography, focusing on the authors bias toward Arabs and Islam. Muhammad Asad, in The Road to Makkah, writes his autobiography in an honest, fascinating and accessible way which draws the reader along from chapter to chapter. What most draws the reader into the story of Asads life is his humility, his refusal to try to make himself more important in history than he believes he really is. He sees his life as primarily a spiritual journey, having to do more with the work of God -Allah -in his life than with any great accomplishment on his own part: The story I am going to tell . . . is not the autobiography of a man conspicuous for his role in public affairs; . . . it is not even the story of a deliberate search for faith -for that faith came upon me . . . without any endeavor on my part. We will write a custom essay sample on The Road To Makkah ( Muhammad Asad ) or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page . . . My story is simply the story of a Europeans discovery of

How to Organize a Dorm Room

How to Organize a Dorm Room Given how ridiculously tiny the room might be, knowing how to organize a dorm room can be a challenge. So just what can you do to make the most of what space you do have? Dont have anything in the room that serves only one function. Sure, that plug-in grilled cheese maker seems cool, but it takes up a lot of space and can only do one thing. Make sure that every item in your room serves more than one function. For example, pick a speaker system for your iPhone that charges it at the same time. Use a throw on your bed that you can also take to football games when it gets cold outside. Youre paying a lot for that little room make sure your stuff is earning its keep, too! Think about the actual number of things youll really need at any time. Do you really need 20 highlighters? Or will 5 do? Let your campus bookstore be the one to keep things in stock; you can always run down there and get more of any supply (or borrow some from your roommate or friends down the hall). Split things with your roommate. Do you really need two printers? Two mini-fridges? Two MLA manuals? Of course, if sharing makes things get sticky, avoid this rule ... but, most likely, yo u and your roommate can make things work out by sharing some of the most important stuff. And you can save some sacred space (and cash) in the meantime. Avoid empty space. You probably have a duffel bag or suitcase for your trips home (or elsewhere). When you store them in your closet, dont store them empty. Put out-of-season clothes, big jackets, blankets, and anything else that will fit inside of them. Is there room under your bed? Buy storage boxes and cram in as much as you can. Youll still have your stuff accessible but no longer in the way. Aim for keeping things organized as often as you can. You may hear echoes of your mother in this rule, but its true: in a space that is especially small, keeping things organized will make the space seem larger. If youre pulling an all-nighter, getting everything off your desk except the stuff you need will help as your ability to focus starts to fade. If you like to read and study on your bed, being able to do so without having to fight for space with your laundry will make it easier on both your body and your brain.

The Problem With Feudalism

The Problem With Feudalism Medieval historians arent generally bothered by words. In fact, the intrepid medievalist is always ready to leap into the rough-and-tumble milieu of Old English word origins, medieval French literature, and Latin Church documents. Icelandic Sagas hold no terror for the medieval scholar! Next to these challenges, the esoteric terminology of medieval studies is mundane, and no threat to the historian of the Middle Ages. But theres one word that has become the bane of medievalists everywhere. Use it in discussing medieval life and society, and the average medieval historian will screw up his face in revulsion. There might be some sighs, some head shaking, and perhaps even some hands thrown in the air. What is this word that has the power to annoy, disgust, and even upset the ordinarily cool and collected medievalist? Feudalism. Every student of the Middle Ages is at least somewhat familiar with feudalism. The term is usually defined as follows: Feudalism was the dominant form of political organization in medieval Europe. It was a hierarchical system of social relationships wherein a noble lord granted land known as a fief to a free man, who in turn swore fealty to the lord as his vassal and agreed to provide military and other services. A vassal could also be a lord, granting portions of the land he held to other free vassals; this was known as subinfeudation, and often led all the way up to the king. The land granted to each vassal was inhabited by serfs who worked the land for him, providing him with income to support his military endeavors; in turn, the vassal would protect the serfs from attack and invasion. Of course, this is an extremely simplified definition, and there are many exceptions and caveats that go along with this model of medieval society, but the same could be said of any model applied to a historical period. Generally, it is fair to say that this is the explanation for feudalism youll find in most history textbooks of the 20th century, and it is very close to every dictionary definition available. The problem? Virtually none of it is accurate. Feudalism  was  not the dominant form of political organization in medieval Europe. There was no hierarchical system of lords and vassals engaged in a structured agreement to provide military defense. There was no subinfeudation leading up to the king. The arrangement whereby serfs worked the land for a lord in return for protection, known as manorialism or seignorialism, was not part of a feudal system. Monarchies of the early Middle Ages may have had their challenges and their weaknesses, but kings did not use feudalism to exert control over their subjects, and the feudal relationship was not the glue that held medieval society together. In short, feudalism as described above never existed in Medieval Europe. We know what youre thinking. For decades, even centuries, feudalism has characterized our view of medieval society. If it never existed, then why did so many historians say it did for so long? Werent there entire books written on the subject? Who has the authority to say that all those historians were wrong? And if the current consensus among the experts in medieval history is to reject feudalism, why is it still presented as reality in nearly every medieval history textbook? The best way to answer these questions is to engage in a little historiography. Lets begin with a look at the origin and evolution of the term feudalism. A Post-Medieval What, Now? The first thing to understand about the word feudalism is that it was never used during the Middle Ages. The term was invented by 16th- and 17th-century scholars to describe a political system of several hundred years earlier. This makes feudalism a post-medieval construct. Theres nothing inherently wrong with constructs. They help us understand alien ideas in terms more familiar to our modern thought processes. The phrases Middle Ages and medieval are constructs, themselves. (After all, medieval people didnt think of themselves as living in a middle age they thought they were living in the now, just like we do.) Medievalists may not like the way the term medieval is used as an insult, or how absurd myths of past customs and behavior are commonly attributed to the Middle Ages, but most are confident that the use of middle ages and medieval to describe the era as in between the ancient and early modern eras is satisfactory, however fluid the definition of all three time frames may be. But medieval has a fairly clear meaning based on a specific, easily-defined viewpoint. Feudalism cannot be said to have the same. In 16th  century France,  Humanist  scholars grappled with the history of Roman law and its authority in their own land. They examined, in depth, a substantial collection of Roman law books. Among these books was something called the  Libri Feudorum- the Book of Fiefs. The  Libri Feudorum  was a compilation of legal texts concerning the proper disposition of fiefs, which were defined in these documents as lands held by people referred to as vassals. The work had been put together in Lombardy, northern Italy, in the 1100s, and over the course of the intervening centuries, many lawyers and other scholars had commented on it and added definitions and interpretations, or  glosses.  The  Libri Feudorum  is an extraordinarily significant work that, to this day, has been barely studied since the 16th-century French lawyers gave it a good look. In the course of their evaluation of the Book of Fiefs, the scholars made some fairly reasonable assumptions: That the fiefs under discussion in the texts were pretty much the same as the fiefs of 16th-century France- that is, lands belonging to nobles.That the  Libri Feudorum  was addressing actual legal practices of the 11th century and not simply expounding on an academic concept.That the explanation of the origins of fiefs contained in the  Libri Feudorum- that is, that grants were initially made for as long as the  lord  chose, but were later extended to the grantees lifetime and  afterward  made hereditary- was a reliable history and not mere conjecture. The assumptions may have been reasonable- but were they correct? The French scholars had every reason to believe they were, and no real reason to dig any deeper. After all, they werent so much interested in the historical  facts of the time period as they were in the legal questions addressed in the  Ã¢â‚¬â€¹Libri Feudorum.  Their foremost consideration was whether or not the laws even had any authority in France- and, ultimately, the French lawyers rejected the authority of the Lombard Book of Fiefs. However, during the course of their investigations, and based in part on the assumptions outlined above, the scholars who studied the  Libri Feudorum  formulated a view of the Middle Ages. This general picture included the idea that feudal relationships, wherein noblemen granted fiefs to free vassals in return for services, were important in medieval society because they provided social and military security at a time when  the central  government was weak or nonexistent. The idea was discussed in editions of the  Libri Feudorum  made by the legal scholars Jacques Cujas and Franà §ois Hotman, both of whom used the term  feudum  to indicate an arrangement involving a  fief. It didnt take long for other scholars to see some value in the works of Cujas and Hotman and apply the ideas to their own studies. Before the 16th century was over, two Scottish lawyers- Thomas Craig and Thomas Smith- were using feudum in their classifications of Scottish  lands and their tenure. It was apparently Craig who first expressed the idea of feudal arrangements as a hierarchical  system;  moreover, it was  a  system that was imposed on nobles and their subordinates by their monarch as a matter of policy.  In the 17th century,  Henry Spelman, a noted English antiquarian, adopted this viewpoint for English legal history, as well. Although Spelman never used the word feudalism, either, his work went a long way toward creating an -ism from the handful of ideas over which Cujas and Hotman had theorized. Not only did Spelman maintain, as Craig had done, that feudal arrangements were part of a system, but he related the English feudal heritage with that of Europe, indicating that feudal arrangements were characteristic of medieval society as a whole. Spelman wrote with authority, and his hypothesis was happily accepted as fact by scholars who saw it as a sensible explanation of medieval social and property relations. Over the next several decades, scholars explored and debated feudal ideas. They expanded the meaning of the term from legal matters and adapted it to other aspects of medieval society. They argued over the origins of feudal arrangements and expounded on the various levels of  subinfeudation. They incorporated manorialism and applied it to the agricultural economy. They envisioned a complete system of feudal agreements that ran throughout all of Britain and Europe. What they did  not  do was challenge Craigs or Spelmans interpretation of the works of Cujas and Hotman, nor did they question the conclusions that Cujas and Hotman had drawn from the  Libri Feudorum. From the vantage point of the 21st century, its easy to ask why the facts were overlooked in favor of the theory. Present-day historians  engage in  a rigorous  examination of the evidence and clearly identify a theory as a theory (at least, the good ones do). Why didnt 16th- and 17th-century scholars do the same? The simple answer is that history as a scholarly field has evolved over time; and in the 17th century, the academic discipline of  historical  evaluation was in its infancy. Historians did not yet have the tools- both physical and figurative- we take for granted today, nor did they have the example of scientific methods from other fields to look to and incorporate into their own learning processes. Besides, having a straightforward model by which to view the Middle Ages gave scholars the sense that they understood the time period. Medieval society becomes so much easier to evaluate and comprehend if it can be labeled and fit into a simple organizational structure. By the end of the 18th century, the term feudal system was in use among historians, and by the middle of the 19th century, feudalism had become a fairly well-fleshed out model, or construct, of medieval government and society. The idea spread beyond the cloistered halls of academia. Feudalism became a buzzword for any oppressive, backward, hidebound system of government. In the  French Revolution, the feudal regime was abolished by the  National Assembly, and in Karl Marxs  Communist Manifesto,  feudalism was the oppressive, agrarian-based economic system that preceded the inequitable, industrialized, capitalist economy. With such far-ranging appearances in both academic and mainstream usage, it would be an extraordinary challenge to break free of what was, essentially, a wrong impression. In the late 19th century, the field of medieval studies began to evolve into a serious discipline. No longer did the average historian accept as fact everything that had been written by his predecessors and repeat it as a matter of course. Scholars of the medieval era began to question interpretations of the evidence, and they began to question the evidence, as well. This was by no means a swift process. The medieval era was still the bastard child of historical study; a dark age of ignorance, superstition, and  brutality; a thousand years without a bath.  Medieval historians had a great deal of prejudice, fanciful inventions and misinformation to overcome, and there was no concerted effort to shake things up and reexamine every theory ever floated in the study of the Middle Ages. And feudalism had become so entrenched in our view of the time period, it wasnt an obvious choice of target to overturn. Even once historians began to recognize the system as a post-medieval construct, the validity of the construct wasnt questioned. As early as 1887,  F. W. Maitland  observed in a lecture on English constitutional history that we do not hear of a feudal system until feudalism ceased to exist.  He examined in detail what feudalism supposedly was and discussed how it could be applied to English medieval law, but never did he question its very existence. Maitland was a well-respected scholar, and much of his work is still enlightening and useful today. If such an esteemed historian treated feudalism as a legitimate system of law and government, why should anyone think to question him? For a long time, nobody did. Most medievalists continued in Maitlands vein, acknowledging that the word was a construct, and an imperfect one at that, yet going forward with articles, lectures, treatises and entire books on what exactly feudalism had been; or, at the very least, incorporating it into related topics as an accepted fact of the medieval era. Each historian presented his own interpretation of the model- even those claiming to adhere to a previous interpretation deviated from it in some significant way. The result was an unfortunate number of varying and even conflicting definitions of feudalism. As the 20th century progressed, the discipline of history grew more rigorous. Scholars uncovered new evidence, examined it closely, and used it to modify or explain their view of feudalism. Their methods were sound, as far as they went, but their premise was problematic: they were trying to  adapt  a deeply flawed theory to such a wide variety of facts. Although several historians  expressed concerns over the indefinite nature of the well-worn model and the terms many imprecise meanings, it wasnt until 1974 that anyone thought to stand up and point out the most basic, fundamental problems with feudalism. In a ground-breaking article entitled The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe,  Elizabeth A. R. Brown  leveled an unwavering finger at the academic community and roundly denounced the term feudalism and its continued use. Clearly,  feudalism was a construct that was developed  after  the Middle Ages, Brown maintained, and the system it described bore little resemblance to actual medieval society. Its many differing, even contradictory definitions had so muddied the waters that it had lost any useful meaning. The construct was actually interfering with the proper examination of evidence concerning medieval law and society; scholars viewed land agreements and social relationships through the warped lens of the feudalism construct, and either disregarded or dismissed anything that didnt fit into their chosen version of the model. Brown asserted  that  considering how difficult it is to unlearn what one has learned, to continue to include feudalism in introductory texts would do readers of those texts a grave injustice. Browns article was very well-received in academic circles. Virtually no American or British medievalists objected to any part of it, and almost everyone who read it agreed: Feudalism was not a useful term, and really should go. Yet, feudalism stuck around. There were improvements. Some new publications in medieval studies avoided using the term altogether; others used it only  sparingly,  and focused on actual laws, land tenures, and legal agreements instead of on the model. Some books on medieval society refrained from characterizing that society as feudal. Others, while acknowledging that the term was in dispute, continued to use it as a useful shorthand for lack of a better term, but only as far as it was necessary. But there were still authors that included descriptions of feudalism as a valid model of medieval society with little or no caveat. Why? For one thing, not  every  medievalist had read Browns  article,  or had a chance to consider its implications or discuss it with his colleagues. For another, revising work that had been conducted on the premise that feudalism was a valid construct would require the kind of reassessment that few historians were prepared to engage in, especially when deadlines were drawing near. Perhaps most significantly, no one had presented a reasonable model or explanation to use in place of feudalism. Some historians and authors felt they had to provide their readers with a handle by which to grasp the general ideas of medieval government and society. If not feudalism, then what? Yes, the emperor had no clothes; but for now, he would just have to run around naked.

Critically discuss the empirical evidence that there are sex Essay

Critically discuss the empirical evidence that there are sex differences in intelligence - Essay Example There are facts proving that such an inequality results in economic stagnation connected with decreasing labour productivity. (Appold, S. et. al., 1998, np) Gender inequality actualises also other, non-economical problems of poverty: lack of security, rights, resources and opportunities. In fact, there are no â€Å"gender neutral† phenomena in any sphere of social life: any change in it tells substantially upon the status of citizens (both women and men) in the society, and that is why many social phenomena have been studied nowadays taking into account their gender aspect. When speaking about the inequality of genders in any county, we usually mean the violation of women’s rights. Sandra Bem is sure that in the modern society with its patriarchal culture domination, women have constantly been oppressed, as well as a sexual minority, and it makes sexism related to heterosexism. (cited from: Lott, 1994, np) There has been a lot of research in psychology concerning the issue of gender inequality. Gender psychology aims at explaining the inequality of genders not as the result of biological differences between sexes but analysing different social, cultural and economic factors. Moreover, gender sociology states that the personality of any woman is precious in itself, and women have all the right to choose their own life paths, either accepting or breaking traditional stereotypes. Women being considered inferior to males has many facets: from the inequality of salaries and unequal division of family duties to violence, pornography, lack of political rights, etc. The modern society is still of patriarchal character, therefore this issue is topical, and a lot of factors contribute to it, from cultural beliefs and traditions to scholarly theories that claim that there are sex differences in intelligence, and therefore women should only perform particular duties in the society and are not welcome to do anything that is historically attributed to

See below Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 4

See below - Essay Example Let us discuss those skills in some detail in order to get a better understanding of how to teach disable children. Teachers of deaf children must possess some special skills and abilities in order to become an effective teacher for the class consisting of deaf children. These skills and knowledge make the teachers of deaf children different to the teachers of normal children. Teachers must have the knowledge of deaf children’s emotions, perceptions, and behaviors in order to teach them in a proper way. They must know how deaf children think and perceive different things. Parents and siblings of the dead children feel a lot of stress due to the inability of their children to communicate effectively with them. The teachers teach the children how to communicate their feelings and emotions to their parents that results in reducing the parents’ stress. It is common fact that senses other than hearing sense go into overdrive for the deaf children in order to compensate them for their disability. Some of these senses include higher visual sense and ability to read the expressions of faces more effectively as compared to normal people. Teachers can make use of these superior senses of deaf children in order to teach them in an appropriate manner and make them able to communicate with different people around them. Teachers also need to work on improving the behavior of deaf children and this is only possible when the teachers will have complete understanding of the deaf children’s abilities to view and perceive different things. Teachers also need to be proficient in teaching the deaf children through educational technologies such as visual telephone relay services, computer-based teaching, video tapes, and television. These technologies work as the major sources of learning for the deaf children. Various researches have proved that visualizing ability of the

Spying :: essays research papers

With the growing deviant behavior around the country, law enforcement has developed 21st century surveillance techniques and methods. Now people are continually monitored to keep the public in check and obey the laws of the state. The government can supervise citizens with a new speed monitoring technology replacing highway patrol officers. In addition to speed cameras, car manufacturers have developed an On-star system, can assist motorists who need directions, have car troubles, or even order flowers for a loved one. The ingenious system that takes individual pictures of every car that passes an operational camera and then proceeds to calculate the speed at which the vehicle is traveling at the time of the photograph. This new way of apprehending speeders causes apprehension for some drivers, fear in others, and even disgust for some owners.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The automated ticket surprises people when casually opening their mail. It gives them a reminder about the importance of following the laws even when someone thinks they are not being monitored. But the main argument surrounding the heated topic of computer-generated Highway Patrol is the unknown driver of the vehicle. The tickets are written to the owner of the vehicle, the owner is not always the driver consequently, unfairly penalizing unsuspecting people.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Personal surveillance has gained in popularity in the past couple of years. Cameras are hidden through houses, trip meters in cars record the top speed and number of miles each day, and an assistance program is installed in select automobiles. The On-star system assists owners of GMC cars with driving directions, car troubles, and theft using the global positioning system. A private company via satellite that can access the vehicle’s location, model, and year operates this system. The technicians answering all the calls from the owners of the cars have complete access to personal information politely addressing the caller by name. This system deters criminals from stealing cars equipped with On-star because the operators can easily locate a stolen vehicle. Therefore, the police can track down the stolen car in a matter of minutes, with the help of the On-star company. It is an uncanny feeling to have an On-star technician give a driver the exact position of their vehicle.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The trip meters allow owners of a vehicle to check on other drivers of that car. By recording the date, distance traveled, and top speed of the day, the owner can monitor other driver’s aggressiveness and honesty.

Movie Review of Canterbury Tales

The British film entitled A Canterbury Tale was released in 1944 and directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. The movie was successful enough in adapting the themes of Chaucer’s creation. It is a mixture of Comedy Drama which enticed the audience and kept them tuck in their seats. The magnificent genre and plot was performed artistically by actors and actresses in the film.The film depicts the era of the 14th century, giving audience a glimpse of what really happened during that time. The Canterbury Tales (written form) is one of the greatest works done during the 14th century but for a work to be considered â€Å"the work of the century† it must exemplify the major events that happened during that period. Good thing that the directors successfully gave audience a clear representation of the book by Chaucer.The film was set in Britain and deals with the system of locking up young daughters as part of the policy adopted by Thomas Colpepper, J.P. (Erick Portman) in the film. In order to escape from he claws of Portman, Sgt. Peter Gibbs (Dennis Price) who is a British tank sergeant led the troop on a journey towards many discoveries.He traveled with Alison Smith (Sheila Sim) a shopkeeper and American GI Bob Johnson (John Sweet). They traveled towards Canterbury. The journey of the main characters made them discover many things about life. The stereotypical notion about Yankees was reversed by Sweet’s experience as he met his true love along the way to Canterbury. There is magic in every life of the characters and the actors and actresses played their part very well.The movie is also magnificent in terms of cinematography since there are scenes that made it possible for audience to see themselves united with the characters. The camera angles are set in a way that viewers will see the emotion of the characters more clearly.The Canterbury Tales as it were, holds a mirror to the life of the Chaucer’s age and shows it manners and m orals completely, â€Å"not in fragments†. The director of the film replaces effectively the shadowy delineations of the old romantic and allegorical school with the vivid and pulsating pictures of contemporary life that made the film more appealing. Chaucer’s tone as a poet is wonderfully instinct with geniality, tolerance, humor, and freshness which are absent from that of his contemporaries and predecessors who are too dreamy or too serious to be interesting.Another thing that made the film outstanding is the variation of characters in terms of profession, experiences in life and point of views. Although the film was made in black and white, viewers can still enjoy watching because of the plot and the theme. A Canterbury Tale film was adopted from The Canterbury Tales of Geoffrey Chaucer, and loosely uses Chaucer's theme of unconventional characters on a pilgrimage' to highlight the period of war, the experiences of the citizens of Kent and persuade the friendship a nd understanding of Anglo-American.The film was shot in locations like Kent countryside. It is a representation of the real environment were war is rampant and in Canterbury itself. Large participation of people was also utilized since there is a need for crowd performances like river battles and children activities. It creates a dynamic and interactive environment that made viewers enticed.The directors of the film made the characters detailed and true to life-like because he intended to make the viewers of the time reflect on their actions. The film shows clearly the good and bad situations in Canterbury, and it was intended to be easily understood by the audience.