The Romantic Era Essay Example for Free

The Romantic Era Essay The basic notion behind the music belonging to the Romantic Era was its deep and realistic impact on the audience’s heart and mind. Such was the popularity of Romanticism amongst musicians that a certain number of them created their own unique templates. Along with the progressing popularity of the German lieder, newly introduced instrumental styles like overtures and symphonic poems also gained heat (Kirby, 1990). Classical music in this era prospered and rose to such a high notch that it is absolutely essential to state that some of music’s most magnificent works were created during this period. Legendary music composers including Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Schumann, have made priceless contributions to the romantic classical music. For example, Beethoven composed his later works in this period while Schubert composed a vast number of lieder, symphonies, chamber music, and piano solos. Furthermore, Franz Liszt and Richard Wagner also attained popularity in the mid 19th century on behalf of their sophisticated compositions. Liszt produced some extraordinary music for piano while Wagner combined the various forms of arts into his mythological musicals (Kirby, 1990). In the late 19th century, composers performed diverse experimentations on their works. For instance, Anton Bruckner had a tinge of both religion and secularism in his symphonies; Johannes Brahms found himself in Classicism; Giuseppe Verdi was responsible for some of the greatest operas of all time; Gustav Mahler composed for a full orchestra; and Richard Strauss made his name in symphonic poems and operas. Moreover, this era was also famous for its nationalistic characteristics. Musicians in the north and east side of Europe took the initiative to include a patriotic element in their compositions. Their basic inspiration for this matter was their local folk songs and dances. The renowned Russian composer, Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky was a significant figure of this category and is attributed for his nationalistic approach (Kirby,1990).

Babies Infants Knowledge

Babies Infants Knowledge Claims about infant number competence contrast with claims of toddler ignorance. Consider explanations of the discrepancy. 1- Introduction: This essay will explore the researches which claim that babies are born with a predisposition to learn about objects and numerosities. It also aims to understand the issues that why some psychologists are still unconvinced about inborn knowledge. And if babies are so smart, why are preschoolers so ignorant? The question is to what extent is the sense of numbers innate and to what extent is it learned? Piaget used observational and informal experiments to study infants. He denied the existence of innate knowledge. Early Piaget experiments (1942) described that infants are born with no understanding of numerosity. He argued that the number concept is built from previously existing sensorimotor intelligence. In contrast, recent researchers argue that sensitivity to number is innate and even young infants possess strikingly mature reasoning abilities in the numerical domain. Vygotsky (1978) pointed out â€Å" childrens learning begins long before they enter school they have had to deal with operations of division, addition, subtraction, and the determination of size. Consequently, children have their own preschool arithmetic, which only myopic psychologists could ignore† (p. 84). Similarly, recent experiments have shown that infants between 4 to 7 months are able to discriminate two items from three items, but not 4 items from 6 items (Starkey et al 1983). In 1992, Karen Wynn argued that â€Å"human infants can discriminate between different small numbers of items† (p.749). Wynn used differences in looking times as evidence of knowledge. Similar logic in Baillargeon’s (2004) studies of infants is reported. In contrast to claims about infant capabilities and predispositions, recent studies of toddlers (preschoolers) suggest slow development and gradual understanding of numerical skill. Now we will discuss the researches which claim about infants’ knowledge of number competence contrast with claims of toddler ignorance. 2- Studies which claim about human infants’ knowledge of number competence: 2.1- Wynn’s approach: In 1992, Karen Wynn, came up with the idea of using a technique called Preferential Looking Time (PLT) to study the mathematical abilities in babies. Wynn took advantage of the fact that infants will gape, eyes wide with surprise, at things they dont expect to see, to show that babies as young as five to ten months old can add and subtract small numbers. In her experiment Wynn (1992) shows the baby a Mickey Mouse doll and then places it behind a screen. As the baby continues to watch, the researcher places a second Mickey behind the same screen. In half the trials, she then uses a hidden trapdoor to remove one of the dolls. Then screen drops and Wynn found that babies stared much longer when only one Mickey doll is there. They had apparently expected to see two. But were the babies really calculating one plus one equals two? Or did they simply realise that one plus one had to equal something more than one? To answer that question, Wynn tried the babies on one plus one equals three. The babies were appropriately surprised when three dolls appeared from behind the screen rather than two. According to Wynn (1992), â€Å"infants possess true numerical concepts- they have access to the ordering of and numerical relationships between small numbers and can manipulate these concepts in numerically meaningful way† (p750). Wynn argued that looking for longer time at the wrong results of 1+1 and 2-1 is evidence that infants have innate number knowledge. There are many questions which need explanations e.g. were infants surprised or familiar? Were they responding to differences in quantity or numerosity? Can infants really add and subtract? etc. Leslie B. Cohen and Kathryn S. Marks in ‘How infants process addition and subtraction events’ mentioned†¦. â€Å"Wynn has argued that infants are not only sensitive to number; they are able to manipulate small numerosities. She pointed out three major claims about infants’ abilities: Infants understand the numerical value of small collections of objects. Infants’ knowledge is general and can be applied to varying items and different modalities (for example, Starkey, Spelke, Gelman, 1990). Infants are able to reason at the ordinal level and compute the result of simple arithmetic problems (i.e., add and subtract)† (P.5-6). Wynn (1990) argued that children learn the meanings of smaller number words before larger ones within their counting range, up to the number three or four and by the age of 3  ½ years they can learn cardinal principle. But in everyday life we are failed to provide the evidence regarding the competence in early years of life. There is no doubt that many studies reported that children have an innate understanding of the basic counting but many other studies which do not support these findings. 2.2- Starkey, Spelke, Gelman approach: In 1990, Starkey, Spelke, Gelman found that infants between ages 4 and 7 ½ months can differentiate two items from three, but not 4 items from 6. In this study, 7 month old infants were presented with two photographs of two or three items accompanied with two or three drumbeats. Starkey et al.’s criterion was same as Wynn’s (difference in looking time).The infants looked significantly longer at the photos with the number of items matching the number of drumbeats. This study did not tell us that infants perceived that 2 is more than 1 or 3 is more than 2. The ability to understand even small numerosity from the early months of life seems to suggest that there is an innate mechanism for number which forms the basis for further development of numerical skills and abilities. Starky et al. (1990) interpreted these results as evidence that infants can recognize the number distinctions both in audio and visual display. This research is also controversial. There are contrasting claims which abandon ideas of competence. According to Mix, Huttenlocher, and Levine (1996), â€Å"it has been claimed that acquisition of the conventional number system is guided by preverbal numerical competencies available in infancy (Gallistel Gelman, 1992; Gelman, 1991).Thus, if infants have an abstract number concept, this should be evident in early childhood† (p.1593). Mix, Huttenlocher, and Levine (1996), using a procedure adapted for preschoolers, found that three-year-olds were unable to correctly match auditory to visual numerosity. 3- Studies which deny the claim of human infants’ knowledge of number competence: 3.1- Mix, Huttenlocher, and Levine approach: Mix, Huttenlocher and Levine (1996) tested infants, toddlers and preschool children from a variety of backgrounds to see at what age they began to recognize the connection between repeated sounds and similar numbers of objects before them and when infants and children begin grasping the basic concepts of mathematics. They conducted three experiments to find out whether preschool children could do significantly well on similar tasks as used by Starkey et al.’s (1990) infants studies. They found that infants were unable to make the audio-visual matches but could make visual-visual matches. Similarly, three year olds were able to make visual matches between groups of objects and sets that corresponded in number, but only made the same number of audio-visual matches they would have made had they been guessing. According to Mix, Huttenlocher and Levine (1996) In contrast, 4-year-olds performed significantly above chance in both conditions, indicating that the ability to detect audio-visual numerical correspondences develops during this age period(p.1600). They argued that if Starkey et al.’s (1990) claims about infants are true then preschoolers should show a similar competence. By their studies, Mix, Huttenlocher and Levine (1996) found no evidence that 3 year olds can detect audio-visual numerical correspondences. The developmental period between 3 to 4 years was found to be a crucial for mathematics, as preschoolers quickly expand their ability to understand the abstract relationship between numbers and sets as dissimilar as objects and events. They also tested toddlers ability to perform nonverbal calculation and found that the ability develops between ages 2  ½ and 3. Some studies have suggested that abstract numerical knowledge develops in infancy, but Levine and Huttenlocher found that babies only have an approximate understanding of numbers and at age of 3 years children can represent number exactly. Mix, Huttenlocher and Levine (1996) claim that: The discrepancy is due to the contrast criteria between infant study and preschool study. For infant study criteria was looking for longer time and in preschool study an active choice response was needed, which was much more demanding criteria. The ability to match and calculate correctly, nonverbally, is neither innate nor independent of general ability. Mix (1999) studied preschool children to see whether they ‘recognise numerical equivalence between sets that vary in similarity’. She pointed out that if claims about number competence in infancy are true then children should be able to judge numerical equivalence for other types of similarity. She emphasized that none of the tasks in infants’ studies â€Å"requires the explicit numerical comparison of one set to another† (p.272). According to Mix (1999) â€Å"a prevalent claim is that numerical abstraction emerges very early, perhaps as part of an innate knowledge structure that is specific to the number domain (Gallistel Gelman, 1992).This implies that development of numerical competence should have some advantages or at least follow a distinct path compared to other domains† (p.290). But she did not find any evidence. She proposed that discrepancy between infants and toddlers knowledge of number competence is because of different levels of understanding. She clarified that preschool matching task was different as compared to infant looking time task and these both task measures different type of numerical knowledge. (p.291) In 2002 Mix, Huttenlocher and Levine critically reviewed â€Å"the idea that quantitative development is guided by an inborn ability to represent discrete number† (p.278). They tested the quantitative competencies of infants and young children mentioned in their article. They arise many questions which are very important and need clarification: ‘What non-numerical cues do infants use? How does a number-based representation develop from such origins? How do children differentiate and ultimately integrate discrete and continuous quantification?’ 3.2- Clearfield and Westfahl approach: Clearfield and Westfahl (2006) conducted three experiments on 3 to 5 months infants to see how familiarization affects their looking time during addition problems. They replicated Wynn’s (1992) procedure in first experiment and found that infants looked longer at incorrect outcome same as in Wynn’s findings. They strongly argued on the basis of their results that â€Å"infants responded to the stimuli based on familiarity rather than the mathematical possibility† (p.40) (number competence) of the event in Wynn’s original finding and in Experiment 1. They also pointed out that there was no statistical difference in infants’ looking towards 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 (in Wynn’s finding). They asked for future research to confirm this. (p.40) In their article, Clearfield and Westfahl (2006) mentioned that Cohen and Marks (2002) challenged Wynn’s (1992) finding about infants’ number competence. Clearfield and Westfahl (2006) also told about Wynn’s (2002) response to it i.e. she rejected their challenge by saying that they did not replicate her study exactly. 4- Discussion: Evidence show that infants have inborn number competence and even they can manipulate simple arithmetic (Wynn, 1992). There is a considerable debate is going on young children’s ability about numerosity especially with regard to addition and subtraction. The problem is word number learning which they learn at later years. By the age of 2 years, children can count up to three or more (Gelman Gallistel, 1978). Wynn’s (1992) finding is challenged by Cohen and Marks (2002) as cited by Clearfield and Westfahl (2006). But Wynn’s (2002) rejected this challenge and still strict with her claims about infants’ inborn number competence. Clearfield and Westfahl (2006) interpreted that infants do not have counting ability but their performance on infants’ studies was based on familiarization. They insisted that researcher must work on the issues of familiarization and other basic perceptual processes rather than more controversial concept of number competence in infants. Learning the number system is one of the most difficult tasks for a young child. It is a slow process which takes many years to complete. Researchers have explored questions about the roots of numerical knowledge using looking time techniques with infants. It is still unclear to what extent is the sense of numbers innate and to what extent is it learned and how early the child acquires a meaningful counting procedure? Results of early counting studies appear unstable with each other. Some studies focus on conceptual competence (early counting) and some suggest that understanding the purpose of counting take place in later years. Young children often confuse to answer how many are there? It requires children to tell the last word when counting a set. They usually start counting the objects (Wynn, 1990). Counting out a number of objects from a large set is much complex than counting the number sequence. This all need a practice and clear understanding which develops later on. There is evidence â€Å"that five year old children take large number words to apply to specific, unique cardinal values† (Lipton Spelke, 2005, p.9). They argued that infants are born with innate knowledge of number from which they learn an understanding of number words and verbal counting. It is still unclear that if infants look so smart then why toddlers look so ignorant. Some researchers criticized the infants’ studies that they were not manipulating numbers when confronted with small quantities but may be they looking for total surface area of objects, not for number. We really do not know what was in infants’ mind. But criteria in Mix et al.’s study (1996) required children to point out the picture matching in numerosity, was much more demanding. And other studies involving counting ‘how many objects there are?’ require more understanding and more skill. To conclude all the interpretations about infants and preschoolers, it seems that criteria for judging preschoolers knowledge of number was too demanding. It is clear that at least some of number knowledge is innate. But the question still remains as to how much of it is innate, and how much is learned. In 2004, Zur Gelman argued that 4- and 5-year olds can easily be taught the basics of addition and subtraction. They concluded that even 3- year old children can do addition and subtraction by predicting and checking under supportive environment. Zur Gelman (2004) study is instructive because their emphasis is on practice and how teachers use different strategies. 5- References: Baillargeon, R. (2004). Infants’ reasoning about hidden objects: evidence for event-general and event-specific expectations. Developmental Science, 7, 391-424. Clearfield, M. W., Westfahl, S. M. C. (2006). Familiarization in infants’ perception of addition problems. Journal of Cognition and Development, 7, 27-43. Cohen, B. L. Marks, S.K. (n.d).How infants process addition and subtraction events. Retrieved on January 04, 2008 from http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/CohenLab/pubs/Cohen_and_Marks final.pdf/ Cordes, S. Gelman, R. (2005). The Young Numerical Mind: When Does It Count? The Handbook of Mathematical Cognition. Psychology Press; London. 127–142. Retrieved on January 04, 2008 from http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/~chenml/411/CordesandGelman.pdf Gelman, R., Gallistel, C. R. (1978). The child’s understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lipton, J. S., Spelke, E. S. (2005). Preschool children master the logic of number word meanings. Cognition,xx,1–10. Retrieved on January 14, 2008.from http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/lipton2005b.pdf Mix, K. S. (1999). Similarity and numerical equivalence: Appearances count. Cognitive development, 14, 269-297. Mix, K. S., Huttenlocher, J., Levine, S. C. (1996). Do preschool children recognize auditory-visual correspondences? Child Development, 67, 1592-1608. Mix, K., Huttenlocher, J., Levine, S. (2002). Multiple cues for quantification in infancy: Is number one of them? Psychological Bulletin, 128(2), 278-294. Starkey, P., Spelke, E., Gelman, R. (1990). Numerical abstraction by human infants. Cognition, 36, 97-127. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wynn, K. (1990). Children’s understanding of counting. Cognition, 36, 155-193. Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 358, 749-750. Zur, O., Gelman, R. (2004). Young children can add and subtract by predicting and checking. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 121-137.

The battle of Uhud

The battle of Uhud The Battle Of Uhud In The Name Of ALLAH The Beneficent The Merciful In this essay I will be looking at the underlying factors which led to the Battle of Uhud, the main events which occurred, including my own analysis as well as looking at the result of the battle. The Battle of Uhud was a follow up to the Battle of Badr, the opening clash between the Muslims and the pagans of Makkah. The Makkans had suffered a surprise loss against the Muslims with many noblemen being killed. After this defeat there was outrage in Makkah. There was a lot of pressure on Abu Sufyan now that he was leader of Quraish. Abu Sufyan had avoided showing up at Badr, choosing instead to save the caravan[1]. He was even under pressure in his own home from his wife, Hind, who had lost her father, uncle, brother and son[2] at Badr. Her relatives were killed by a combination of Hamzah and Ali[3] so she had an insatiable thirst for revenge especially against Hamzah as described later. To Abu Sufyans credit, he showed a great desire for revenge himself, pledging the entire proceeds from the caravan in order to raise funds for another battle against the Muslims. He managed to assemble an army of 3000 with 700 armoured with 3000 camels and 200 horses. The army marched towards Madinah arriving there on 6th Shawwal 3 AH[4][5]. The Prophet (SAW)[6] was already aware of the threat having received an urgent letter[7] from Makkah[8]. The Prophet (SAW) held a council of war the following morning. It was decided that the Muslims would go out and meet the enemy. The Muslim army consisted of 1000 men with only 100 armoured and no cavalry. The army reached a place called Ash-Shaikhan where they camped for the night. The following morning, the Muslims had moved to within sight of the enemy. The hypocrites decided to return to Madinah led by Abdullah Bin Ubayy. 300 men withdrew and left the Muslims with 700. It is obvious the hypocrites did not wish to fight so this looks to be a carefully devised plan by Abdullah and his followers in order to weaken the Muslims both in physical strength as well as their morale. The moment of withdrawal was deliberately chosen so close to the start of the battle and within sight of the enemy so that they could see this occurrence and therefore receive fresh encouragement[9]. The Prophet (SAW) moved his army again and positioned them so that the enemy was between them and Madinah. This shows the incredible military leadership of the Prophet (SAW), having arrived at the battlefield after the enemy he took up a better position which would restrict the numerical advantage of the Makkans as well as being protected on all sides apart from one which would lead the pagans to expose the Muslim rear[10]. To deal with this he placed 50 archers under the command of Abdullah Bin Jabir on a mountain with explicit instructions not to vacate the position no matter whether the Muslims were winning or losing. The battle began with the most ferocious fighting centring on the Bani Abdu-Dar who were charged by the Qurarish to be the standard bearers. Bani Abdu-Dar fought courageously with each family member picking up the standard after the previous one was slaughtered and until all 10 members of the family are dead[11]. Then their huge Abyssinian slave takes the standard and continues to fight until he too is slain[12]. After this there was no one left to carry the standard. Hamzah, one of the heroes of Badr was again fighting bravely. It has already been mentioned that Hind wanted revenge so she hired an Abyssinian slave called Wahshi, who was an expert in the use of a javelin, to assassinate Hamzah in return for his freedom. Hamzah had just killed his third opponent, when Wahshi, who until that point had been hiding behind trees and rocks trying to get within range of his target, took aim and struck Hamzah straight through the stomach. Wahshi then waited for Hamzah to die before removing the javelin and then returned to the Quraish camp. However Hind was still not satisfied and after the battle she mutilated his body including cutting open his stomach and taking a bite out of his liver[13]. Despite the great loss of the uncle of the Prophet (SAW), the Muslims pushed forward and seized the advantage, the bulk of the Quraish army turning and fleeing with the Muslims in hot pursuit. The Muslims managed to raid the Quraish camp and started plundering the booty. This should have been the end of the battle and another clear cut victory for the Muslims. Unfortunately, this is where the biggest controversy of the Battle of Uhud occurs. The archers, who until now had managed to hold off the advance of the pagan cavalry, decided to join the plunder and disobey the direct command of the Prophet (SAW) as mentioned earlier. Abdullah Bin Jabir, repeatedly called his men to return to their posts but his cries fell on deaf ears as the archers continued towards the Quraish camp intent on a share of the spoils. Khalid Bin Waleed had managed to keep his men under control amidst the chaos surrounding them. Khalid was keeping an eye on the developments taking place amongst the archers and was looking to exploit just such an opportunity that had presented itself. It was at this moment Khalid made his move and pulled off a masterstroke. The remaining archers were very valiant and determined to follow the Prophet (SAW)s instructions down to the last letter. All of them became shaheed[14] whilst defending the position given to them by the Prophet (SAW). Khalid had attempted to pull of this manoeuvre a few times earlier but was prevented by the archers but had finally succeeded in doing so due to the archers abandonment of their occupied position. This signalled a reversal in fortunes for the Muslims. The bulk of Quraish who had previously being fleeing, seeing the sudden developments, returned to battle. The Muslims were trapped and under attack on two fronts which led to mass confusion and panic even resulting in Muslim killing Muslim albeit accidently[15]. The Prophet (SAW) was left in an exposed and vulnerable position with only a small group of Sahabah[16] with him and the remainder of the army too far for him to control[17]. The Prophet (SAW) was a courageous man and tried to rectify the situation by putting his own life on the line. He called the Muslims towards him although the idolaters recognised his voice and were closer to him therefore reached him first[18]. The battle now centred on the Prophet (SAW) and this has to be the most difficult trying and testing moment of his life surpassing the day of Taif[19]. More pagans left the main battle and charged towards the Prophet (SAW). This small group of Sahabah performed many heroics in order to defend their leader who they loved more than their own lives. They were under severe pressure but they fought ferociously. Many of them became shaheed. The Prophet (SAW) was pelted by stones and received injuries including broken lower font teeth. After this there was a lull in the fighting, while the Makkans were regrouping, Abu Ubaidah used his teeth to remove the rings stuck in the Prophet (SAW)s cheek breaking his own teeth in the process[20]. Ubayy Bin Khalf rode towards the Prophet (SAW) on horseback. The Prophet (SAW) told the Sahabah to allow him to approach. This man had a personal dual to settle with the Prophet (SAW). The Sahabah moved out the way, the Prophet (SAW) picked up a spear and launched it at him. It hit Ubayy between his collarbone and neck and he fell of his horse and ran back to the Quraish camp[21]. The fighting resumed once again with greater intensity and purpose. The Prophet (SAW) had a human shield[22] protecting him from arrows[23]. Ibn Qamiah managed to strike him with his sword on the shoulder resulting in the Prophet (SAW) falling behind in to a ditch dug as a trap by the enemy. Ibn Qamiah then raced back to declare the death of the Prophet (SAW). The rumour spread quickly. The main army of Muslims were heartbroken. Some fled to the mountains, some toward the desert, some toward Madinah while the rest only wanted to fight till the end. The Quraish then commit the same mistake as the Muslims, thinking they had completed their objective they started plundering after the booty. The Quraishi women then began mutilating the bodies of the deceased. By now the majority of the Muslim army had dispersed. The Prophet (SAW) began to make a planned withdrawal with the remaining Sahabah who were mostly injured, some more severe than others, were joined by another group of Muslims as they retreated to Mount Uhud. Khalid had spotted this withdrawal and raced after them with some of his men but was unable to catch them before they reached Uhud. Khalid realised the situation was not in his favour as he was on horseback on mountainous terrain. Khalid then informed Abu Sufyan who was looking for the body of the Prophet (SAW) that he was up in the mountain. Abu Sufyan approached hoping that the rumour was still true, thereby had an interesting conversation with Omar[24]. The Muslims started gathering at where the Prophet (SAW) was resting. The Muslim women[25] were tending to the injured. Once the enemy had vacated the battlefield the Muslims went to inspect the dead and wounded. The Janaazah[26] was performed. The Muslims returned to Madinah[27]. The Muslims had lost 70 men whilst the idolaters had lost 22. The pagans spent the night celebrating. Meanwhile, in Madinah, the Muslims were counting their scars but on the orders of the Prophet (SAW) they went after the Quraish the following morning. Abu Sufyan was satisfied with the result and felt Badr had been avenged by Uhud. Even Hind was pleased. Khalid was one of those who wished to finish the Muslims while they were weakened and destroy Islam once and for all. He believed they had achieved nothing which was indeed correct because the Prophet (SAW) and the most prominent Sahabah were still alive and the Islamic State was still intact. Abu Sufyan feared the 300 who had withdrawn would return in the event of another battle although the Prophet (SAW) only asked those who had participated the previous day to return. On hearing the news of the approaching Muslim army, the panic stricken Quraish fled. My opinion is that the result of the battle is a win for the Muslims albeit not as clear cut as the Battle of Badr. In boxing terms, it was a split decision to the Muslims. Although in terms of casualties it is agreed the Muslims suffered the heavier losses but this is a superficial way of looking at the result of the battle. The best way to judge the battle is to look at the aims and objectives of both sides. Bringing such a large army and having spent such a large amount of money, my opinion is the Quraish undoubtedly wished to kill the Prophet (SAW), wipe out Islam completely and destroy the Islamic State at Madinah. None of these were achieved. Before Abu Sufyan left the battlefield he knew the Prophet (SAW) was alive, he chose not pursue the Muslims up the mountain and chose not to raid Madinah. It must not be forgotten that Quraish army was 3 times larger than the Muslims[28] and yet they only managed to kill 70 Muslims and having had the advantage they did not seize it. It loo ked to be a comfortable victory for the Muslims. The turning point was certainly the disobedience of the archers and the great manoeuvre of Khalid. A victorious army would not have fled the following morning. There are many lessons to be learned from Uhud such as do not disobey the Prophet (SAW). The Quran contains over 60 verses regarding Uhud[29] I would like to end with one such verse: Allah verily made good His promise to you when you routed them by His permission, until (the moment) when your courage failed you, and you disagreed about the order and you disobeyed, after He had shown you that for which you long. Some of you desired the world, and some of you desired the Hereafter. Therefore He made you flee from them, that He might try you. Yet now He has forgiven you. Allah is a Lord of Kindness to believers.[30] Bibliography Akkad, M. (Director) (1976) The Message [Film] Libya: Filmco International Productions Akram, A.I. (2007) Khalid Bin Waleed Sword Of ALLAH Birmingham: Maktabah Mubarakpuri, S.R. (2002) The Sealed Nectar London: Darussalam Subhani, J. (2000) The Message Qum: Ansaryian Publications Watt, W.M. (1961) Muhammad Prophet Statesman Oxford: Oxford University Press [1] This caravan contained the property and wealth of the emigrants who sacrificed everything to go to Madinah. The caravan had safely made it to Syria and was on the return journey to Makkah. [2] Also Abu Sufyans son [3] Khalid Bin Waleed P:18 [4] Late March 625 [5] The Sealed Nectar P:294 [6] Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam = May the peace and blessings of ALLAH be upon him [7] From his uncle Abbas who was a Muslim yet to declare his faith and still living in Makkah. [8] The Sealed Nectar P:293 [9] The Sealed Nectar P:298 [10] Khalid Bin Waleed P:23 [11] The Sealed Nectar P:306 [12] The Sealed Nectar P:307 [13] Khalid Bin Waleed P:39 [14] Martyrs [15] Khalid Bin Waleed P:30 [16] Companions [17] Khalid Bin Waleed P:32 [18] The Sealed Nectar P:313 [19] When the Prophet (SAW) went to Taif to preach Islam but was ridiculed by the chiefs and stoned by the towns children. [20] The Sealed Nectar P:321 [21] When he came to Madinah to ransom his son after Badr, he said he would kill the Prophet (SAW) but the Prophet (SAW) promised to kill him instead. Indeed the prophecy came true. It is reported the wound was only superficial however he was adamant he would die causing hysteria among the pagans. He died after the battle on the way back to Makkah. [22] Abu Dujanah [23] Khalid Bin Waleed P:33 [24] AS: Is Mohammed among you? Is Abu Bakr among you? Is Omar among you? (no response)AS: These 3 are dead. They will trouble us no more O: You lie O enemy of ALLAH! Those 3 are still alive and there are enough of us left to punish you severely! AS: May ALLAH protect you O son of Khattab! Is Mohammed really alive? O: By my Lord Yes! Even now he hears what you say AS: You are more truthful than Ibn Qamiah AS: Glory to Hubal! O[now repeating the words of the Prophet (SAW)]: Glory Be To ALLAH! AS: We have Uzza. You have no Uzza O: ALLAH is our Lord. You have no Lord AS: This is our day for your day of Badr. It is equal O: they are not equal. Our dead are in Paradise while your dead are in the fire! AS: we shall meet again at Badr next year. O: You have our pledge. It is an appointment. AS: You will find among your dead some who have been mutilated. I neither ordered this nor approved of it. Do not blame for this. [25] Including the Prophet (SAW)s daughter Fatimah and his wife Aisha [26] Funeral Prayer [27] The Sealed Nectar P:334 [28] 4x after withdrawal of hypocrites [29] Mainly in Surah Ali Imran [30] 3:152

Sir Thomas More the Martyr Essay -- essays research papers

The definition of a martyr is a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion. When Sir Thomas More died in July of 1535, he became a martyr. In the play A Man for All Seasons, author Robert Bolt shows us his views on how More came to his death . In this play, Thomas Cromwell, Richard Rich, King Henry VIII, and Sir Thomas More himself are responsible for his death. Although it could be argued that many more people in Sir Thomas More’s life had a part in contributing to his death, these four characters had the greatest part in eventually bringing him to his death. Some people may say that Cromwell and Rich were just pawns in the King’s plot, however they can’t possibly argue that they weren’t in control of their actions. Cromwell and Rich are essentially responsible for the final prosecution of More. Together, they are guilty of letting their inner want and need for power cloud their consciences, which led them to bring down a good man of Thomas More. More, being a smart man, could beat them in a court of law. Rather than fighting More with the law, Rich and Cromwell decided to break it. Rich lied under oath sending More to his deathbed, and he responded, â€Å"I am sorrier for your perjury than my peril†(156). Cromwell, in his quest for power, saw a doorway of opportunity where he could bring down More and in the process benefit his own social and economic status. As More stated, â€Å"Silence gives consent† (152) and Cromwell’s silence during Rich’s illegitimate testimony makes him an access ory to the crime and therefore just as guilty as Rich. Together, Rich and Cromwell are partners in the crime, whether they are accomplices to King Henry or for their own reasons. Either way, they are still responsibl... ...and, â€Å"I don’t believe this had to happen†(144). At least twice Sir Thomas More made poor choices and put himself into bad situations in the play, which ultimately took him closer and closer to his death. Sir Thomas More never had to die. He was the only person that really understood the implications that complying with the King’s desires would cause and yet he still ended up in the most undesirable position one could imagine. Many people caused the death of Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons, however those that are most guilty are King Henry, Thomas Cromwell, Richard Rich, and Sir Thomas More. Who of these is most guilty is a matter of opinion, but that these people are truly and completely guilty of ending Sir Thomas More’s life is a fact. From King to commoner each of these people played a vital role in the destruction of one man’s honest and righteous life.

Franco Zeffirelli And Baz Luhrmanns Romeo And Juliet :: William Shakespeare

Franco Zeffirelli and Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet Sex, drugs, and violence are usually a potent combination, and only William Shakespeare could develop them into a masterful, poetic, and elegant story. In the play, "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet," all these aspects of teenage life absorb the reader or watcher. It is understood that Hollywood would try to imitate this masterpiece on screen, and it has done so in two films: Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 "Romeo and Juliet" and Baz Luhrmann's 1996 "William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet." The updated Luhrmann picture best captures the essence of Shakespeare for the present-day viewer. Through the ingenious use of modernization and location, while preserving Shakespearean language, the spirit of Shakespeare emerges to captivate a large audience. Shakespeare's plays were designed to adapt to any audience: with this in mind, Baz Luhrmann created a film that applies to the modern audience through this updating. Luhrmann modernizes "Romeo and Juliet," through constant alterations of the props, which entice the audience into genuinely feeling the spirit of Shakespeare. First, the movie starts with an prologue masked as a news broadcast on television. This sets the scene of the play by illustrating the violence occurring between the two wealthy families, the Montagues and the Capulets. In Zeffirelli's film of "Romeo and Juliet," the prologue takes the form of a dry narrator relating the story of the Montagues and Capulets over a backdrop of an Italian city. For most modern viewers (especially teenagers), the Luhrmann picture is fast-paced, keeping the spectator intrigued, while the Zeffirelli picture is dreary and dull, an endless maze of long and boring conversations, foreshadowed by the prologue. In Luhrmann's film, the actors, instead of carrying swords with them, hide guns in their shirts and wield them expertly. The death of Romeo and Juliet is (as always) blamed on the post office, for not delivering the letter properly. And, to be politically correct, Mercutio appears at the Capulets' ball dressed as a large woman. The actors in Zeffirelli's version of Shakespeare wear colored tights and bulging blouses; thus they appear more comical because they are outdated. By modernizing these aspects of the play, and reconstructing the prologue, Luhrmann creates a movie that is more interesting to the modern viewer, and captures the essence of Shakespeare's writings. Evidencing this viewer-friendliness, the 1996 "William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet" made almost twelve million dollars in the month of November alone due to its clever alterations. As well as updating Shakespeare's play to the present decade through props, Baz Luhrmann's film is more enjoyable because of the vibrant settings. The Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" occurs in an ancient Italian city, with

Doctor of Philosophy Essay

Rich are not relevant to a general audience: â€Å"From the time I was small, I have been very active in defending our environment,† â€Å"From the first time I saw environmental protestors, I realized that they were all crazy. † Note that some of these topics could be converted into theses that would be arguable to a general audience if they were de-personalized and established as arguable issues. Also keep in mind that personal examples may play a significant supporting role in your essay–but not in the thesis or topic sentences. †¢ A thesis should be very clearly written in precise, familiar terms, avoiding language that is overly vague, broad, specialized, or technical. You can assume that your general audience consists of well-informed, intelligent adults with good, general vocabularies, but you cannot assume they are specialists in a particular subject–at least not in English 1A. Example of a vague and overly broad thesis: â€Å"In some cultures, aspects of the environment may play a role in life’s spiritual and metaphysical dimension. †Example of a thesis that is too specialized for a general reader: â€Å"The image of the child in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century scientific, historical, and literary narratives is often representing or figuring interiority, growth, historicity, and development. † (This thesis may be quite clear to advanced scholars of literature or history, but a general audience would probably find it too obscure. ) †¢ A thesis may reliably forecast the organization of the essay, letting the reader know what main supporting points will be covered and in what order. This forecast is sometimes called a plan of development (POD) or a blueprint. A POD is often a good idea, but it is not an obligatory part of the thesis in English 1A; you may present it in the sentence following the thesis, or you may skip it altogether Example of POD in thesis: Skateboarding should be limited to special parks because it poses a nuisance to pedestrians, leads to serious injuries, and causes thousands of dollars’ worth of damage to public and private property. Example of POD following thesis: Skateboarding is not just a harmless recreation and should, in fact, be limited to special parks. As it now stands, the sport poses a nuisance to pedestrians, leads to serious injuries, and causes thousands of dollars’ worth of damage to public and private property. The following thesis rules also apply to your essays in English 1A, but keep in mind that as your academic writing becomes increasingly skilled and sophisticated, you may outgrow these restrictions. And they may not apply to the essays you write in other courses (check with your instructors). †¢ Limit your thesis statement to one sentence. †¢ Do NOT frame your thesis as a question–it should be a declarative statement. †¢ Do NOT rely on an implied thesis. We will encounter some implied theses in our readings, but your essays must have an explicit thesis statement. †¢ The thesis must appear in the essay’s first paragraph (the introduction) at the end of the paragraph. †¢ Underline your thesis in English 1A to make it easier for me (and for you! ) to identify it.

Discuss the Techniques Used by Shakespeare to Present Othello’s Transformation

Discuss the Techniques Used by Shakespeare to Present Othello’s Transformation The transforming of Othello is perhaps one of the most important parts to the play. Shakespeare uses a number of techniques to get across the monumental change in Othello and to dramatically present both the characters and the story. Perhaps the most climatic of all the approaches is Othello’s given state of mind. To begin with, he is calm, reserved and commanding, knowing what he wants and how he is to get it.Shakespeare consigned Othello short, impressive imperatives like ‘stand there’ to demonstrate his amount of control. Othello continues to use majestic language throughout the beginning of the play: ‘but look’ and ‘keep up’. As most of his orders are realized, again it indicates Othello’s ability to obtain all he desires and his assertive stride. Othello’s vocalization style immediately evokes a loud and proud man, standing before us w ith great authority, whilst also holding his own and without revealing his purpose.He says ‘most potent, grave, and reverend signiors’ to display the amount of respect he has for those above him, lavishing them in glorifying adjectives: ‘noble and approved good masters’ and ‘gracious patience’, flattering them to acquire all he wishes. Othello continues to appear humble and reserved, ‘rude am I in my speech†¦ little bless’d with the soft phrase of peace’, when covertly he knows and understands he has an ulterior motive, and understands how to proceed to succeed in this motive.Othello has been given an ability to be sycophantic, in order for those listening to be taken in by his sweet flattery, so he can get in their head, and make them conceive to his demands. Othello does, after all, still remain with his confident and unflappable manner: ‘I have ta’en away this old man’s daughter’, is just o ne is the few examples of the audacious and defiant demeanour he pronounces us with. Othello’s character is not distressed when clarifying the obvious, and is not afraid to express it in such a style that could be portrayed as abrupt and ungracious.However, due to the earlier honeying of his words, Othello can get away with saying such things in a comparable scheme. Essentially, he knows what he is doing. Othello displays an ability to use staggering poetic images: ‘Keep up your bright swords, for the dew will rust them. ’ This shows a lyrical side to him and is just another way he expresses his assurance. It is delicate language, and is said in a dignified fashion, flaunting his unobtrusive authority and his dexterity to remain unruffled.Othello could be powerful, persuasive and emphatic, simply by becoming a profitable raconteur, and drawing his listeners into the tale. The story of Othello and Desdemona’s love (act 1, scene 3), was told so one could see how impressive Othello could be; he could stand in front of a court, confidently and surely, divulge an account, and use elaborate images, captivating all around him completely, when the person he is challenging is one of higher authority. To the audience we view him as an intimidating person, making us quiver in our seats and look to him as one that can hold himself no matter what.Later on, however, Othello changes the manner in which he speaks ‘– Handkerchief — confessions’. He changes to prose, signifying numerous things. Perhaps it is announcing to us that he is now a puppet, a minion, rather than a high general; also that he has lost all his earlier fluency and rhythm. His language is broken and erratic, much like the way he is thinking. When once Othello used the imperatives, by the end of the play, he is succumbing to the orders given by others. ‘Do it not with poison, strangle her’ Iago tells Othello, and Othello is very easily swayed : becoming the passive one.He not only has no control over those around him, but cannot even control his own actions and his own mind. Previously, Othello could stand in front of the Venetian Court and persuade them to listen to his version of events, giving him extravagant respect, whereas the later on in the play one reads, we see him transformed to the afore mentioned minion characteristics. If one was respected by others, they would not say ‘Damn her, lewd minx! ’ and ‘O damn her! ’ It is aggressive and emotive, bordering out of control, and is a complete contrast to his previous, calm self.Othello would not return to that sturdy, serene and placid man he once was. When he uses base language (‘damn’ and ‘lewd’), this again, shows us his metamorphosis to one who has become far more moronic, and lower in the hierarchy. ‘Keep up your bright swords, for the dew will rust them’ is a demonstration of the imagery that Sha kespeare presents Othello with. The majority of his imagery is fairly theatrical, establishing his assurance, as he can execute such extravagant mental images, and carry them off.It also shows that his mind is in a harmonious situation, and is not poisoned, giving him the ability to elect images that would be effective in the circumstances: ‘of moving accidents by flood and field, of hair-breadth escapes ‘ the imminent deadly breach’. Thereafter, we see all his images transforming to become grotesque and incongruous, ‘rather be a toad’. Toads are slimy, unbecoming animals, and Shakespeare is giving us perception to what Othello has been corrupted to adorn. ‘Vapour of a dungeon’ is just another example of the putrid imagery Othello is given.His change in images (both what we acknowledge, and the thoughts of Othello) is monumental, and therefore disturbing. When Othello is speaking to others, we can observe his reaction to what is said. At the beginning, this would not help us perceive much, as he may be thinking one thing, but say another in an entirely believable manner. This was when Othello’s soliquies mattered. Nearer the end, however, Othello was in such a predicament that he always said what he was thinking, and all his emotions were displayed.He is ruled now by what he feels, not by what is right, not what would make sense to the man he once was. In one soliquy he says ‘for I am black’ which indicates insecurity, something that would not have bothered him before. Othello is also feeling sexually insecure, ‘I am abused’, thus feeling sorry for himself. However the earlier Othello would have no reason to be, because he had everything he wanted: ‘boasting is an honour’. Not only is he insecure, he also starts to hold an inability to keep his anger under control.This, in turn, represents a lack of power. ‘Think, my lord! ’ shows his frustration, and the pa ssage that follows unveils a simmering exasperation. This creates tension, as we are waiting for Othello to pronounce us with an unleashed fury. In contrast, when Othello would get angry beforehand, a dignified response was ensued, ‘Good signoir, you shall more command with years than with your weapons’. Even in the face of danger, Othello used to manage keeping control of both himself, and the situation.The change in punctuation is significant to the change in Othello, as it gives us an insight as to how he is reacting, and his state of mind. In the first instance, Shakespeare does not render Othello with too many questions or exclamations, revealing his capacity to remain unruffled and collected. The lack of questions signifies that Othello knows all, and does not question situations or people. Later on, we see the transformation, as Othello is seen to use many more exclamations: ‘not their appetites! ’, ‘the tranquil mind! ’, ‘content! , ‘ambition virtue! ’, ‘glorious war! ’†¦ The list goes on. This implies excitement, anger and perturbation. Before he may not have needed to become animated; if he did, he could keep it under control; perhaps so he could manipulate others. Now, however, he is emotive and dramatic, contrasting his earlier emotions. The new use of question marks expresses Othello’s stupidity and confusion: ‘what didst not like? ’ Not only does this verify his turmoil, but he is also questioning himself. It’s another example of his new found insecurity: ‘is’t possible? Shakespeare has made it as such Othello cannot understand what is going on around him, making him an easier target to wield. Othello’s ‘Love’ for Desdemona was so powerful and passionate, ‘that I love the gentle Desdemona’. Othello wished to marry her, even though it will cause an inimitable eruption. ‘I loved her’ again shows that is his Love was influential (much like him). Othello loves Desdemona so much that he was prepared to ruin his hard-earned career for her, ‘I would not my un-housed free condition put into circumscription and confine for the sea’s worth’.He talks about her countless times throughout the first part of the play and it demonstrates how dominant she has been in his life. Then, however, he goes on to describe her as ‘lewd minx’ disclosing to us that he holds an unaccustomed hatred toward her; he uses ‘fair devil’ at one point, an oxymoron, establishing two things: he is confused, and he loves Desdemona, but hates her also. Moreover, Othello rarely uses her name, when nearing the end of the play: ‘with her, lest her body’, ‘lie with her’ etc, which shows us that he cannot bear to say it.To begin with, however, he would use ‘Desdemona’ regularly, as though by saying her name, it would bring him closer to her, and that’s all he wanted. ‘If I do prove’ discloses the fact that he doth endeavour to believe that Desdemona still Loves him, perhaps because he couldn’t imagine it any other way. Not merely this, but again it is demonstrates his freshly found insecurity and vacillation. Perhaps the most dramatic of the changes presented when looking at Othello’s bestowed behaviour towards Desdemona, is when he hits her.He strikes her accompanied with ‘devil’. Desdemona is simply perplexed, and responds, ‘I have not deserved this’. Her retort explains that what he has done is unconventional for him, and that there is no reason behind the attack. Lodovico plays a vital part when noticing the change between the lovers. He saw how in love they were since the rudiments of the play, and how that has modified. He goes from one extreme to the next, so we see the monumental adaptation between their love through Lodovico’s eye s.He reacts to Othello hitting Desdemona as such: ‘would not have been believed in Venice’, whereas earlier he could see that they were in love. Cassio used to be Othello’s lieutenant, and was when Othello had his own state of mind, his own sense of morals, indicating Cassio was of the correct calibre when it comes to his job. After Othello had been poisoned, however, ‘now art thou my lieutenant’, Othello promotes Iago. It demonstrates his conversion in trust, and reveals that he has almost been twisted to the maximum. It is as though he must have Iago there to endure ‘if thou dost love me, show me thy thought’.He is insecure and paranoid, and must know what Iago is thinking. Dramatic irony also comes into the equation here, as we know Cassio is the one that Othello should accredit, but Iago is the one he believes. Ultimately, this creates tension in the audience. Again, Othello’s soliquies elucidate a great deal when it comes to how he is thinking. ‘O curse of marriage’ tells us that Othello no longer appreciates the idea of marriage, and ‘had rather be a toad, and live upon a vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the thing I love’.Before, we knew that he held certain adoration for marriage, as he decided to espouse Desdemona although it would cause havoc. This soliquy also deduces a great deal about his sentiments, as we see him with pessimistic view-points: ‘Tis destiny unshunnable, like death: even then this forked plague is fated to us’. Finally, Othello returns to his imperturbable self, opening with imperatives on his last speech: ‘soft you’. He is confident again ‘I have done the state some service, and they know’t’. Othello goes on to realise he has been ‘wrought’ by Iago, and ‘perplex’d in the extreme’.He describes Desdemona as a ‘pearl, richer than all his tribe’ and discerns that he threw away something beautiful and vulnerable, due to Iago’s cunningness. Othello finishes with ‘I took by the throat the circumcised dog, and smote him, thus’ indirectly calling himself the enemy, as he stabs himself after the last word. Othello’s veil that was put there by Iago was ripped away and he must have feel satisfaction from realising the truth; however we know he loves Desdemona, as he ends his life because of what he has done, and what he believed to be true.