Senin, 23 Agustus 2010

Attila


Attila (pronounced /ˈætɨlə/ or /əˈtɪlə/; 406–453), also known as Attila the Hun, was the ruler of the Huns from 434 until his death in 453. He was leader of the Hunnic Empire, which stretched from Germany to the Ural River and from the Danube River to the Baltic Sea. During his rule, he was one of the most fearsome of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires' enemies, and came to be known as "the Scourge of God" (in Latin Flagellum Dei). He invaded the Balkans twice and marched through Gaul (modern France) as far as Orléans before being defeated at the Battle of Châlons. He refrained from attacking either Constantinople or Rome.

In much of Western Europe, he is remembered as the epitome of cruelty and rapacity. However, in Hungary, Turkey, and other Turkic-speaking countries in Central Asia, he is regarded as a hero and his name is revered.[citation needed]

Background

The Huns were a group of Eurasian nomads, appearing from beyond the Volga, who migrated into Europe c. 370 and built up an enormous empire there. Their main military techniques were mounted archery and javelin throwing. They were possibly the descendants of the Xiongnu who had been northern neighbours of China three hundred years before and may be the first expansion of Turkic people across Eurasia. The origin and language of the Huns has been the subject of debate for centuries. One scholar suggests a relationship to Yeniseian. According to some theories, their leaders at least may have spoken a Turkic language, perhaps closest to the modern Chuvash language.

Shared kingship

The death of Rugila (also known as Rua or Ruga) in 434 left the sons of his brother Mundzuk (Hungarian: Bendegúz, Turkish: Boncuk), Attila and Bleda (Buda), in control of the united Hun tribes. At the time of two brothers' accession, the Hun tribes were bargaining with Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius II's envoys for the return of several renegades (possibly Hunnic nobles who disagreed with the brothers' assumption of leadership) who had taken refuge within the Eastern Roman Empire.

The following year Attila and Bleda met with the imperial legation at Margus (present-day Požarevac) and, all seated on horseback in the Hunnic manner, negotiated a successful treaty. The Romans agreed to not only return the fugitives, but to also double their previous tribute of 350 Roman pounds (ca. 115 kg) of gold, to open their markets to Hunnish traders, and to pay a ransom of eight solidi for each Roman taken prisoner by the Huns. The Huns, satisfied with the treaty, decamped from the Roman Empire and returned to their home in the Hungarian Great Plain, perhaps to consolidate and strengthen their empire. Theodosius used this opportunity to strengthen the walls of Constantinople, building the city's first sea wall, and to build up his border defenses along the Danube.

The Huns remained out of Roman sight for the next few years while they invaded the Sassanid Empire. When defeated in Armenia by the Sassanids, the Huns abandoned their invasion and turned their attentions back to Europe. In 440 they reappeared in force on the borders of the Roman Empire, attacking the merchants at the market on the north bank of the Danube that had been established by the treaty. Crossing the Danube, they laid waste to the cities of Illyricum and forts on the river, including (according to Priscus) Viminacium, a city of Moesia. Their advance began at Margus, where they demanded that the Romans turn over a bishop who had retained property that Attila regarded as his. While the Romans discussed turning the Bishop over, he slipped away secretly to the Huns and betrayed the city to them.

While the Huns attacked city-states along the Danube, the Vandals led by Geiseric captured the Western Roman province of Africa and its capital of Carthage. Carthage was the richest province of the Western empire and a main source of food for Rome. The Sassanid Shah Yazdegerd II invaded Armenia in 441. The Romans stripped the Balkan area of forces needed to defeat the Vandals in Africa which left Attila and Bleda a clear path through Illyricum into the Balkans, which they invaded in 441. The Hunnish army sacked Margus and Viminacium, and then took Singidunum (modern Belgrade) and Sirmium. During 442 Theodosius recalled his troops from Sicily and ordered a large issue of new coins to finance operations against the Huns. Believing he could defeat the Huns, he refused the Hunnish kings' demands.

Attila responded with a campaign in 443. Striking along the Danube, the Huns, equipped with new military weapons like the battering rams and rolling siege towers, overran the military centres of Ratiara and successfully besieged Naissus (modern Niš).

Advancing along the Nisava River, the Huns next took Serdica, Philippopolis, and Arcadiopolis. They encountered and destroyed a Roman army outside Constantinople but were stopped by the double walls of the Eastern capital. They defeated a second army near Callipolis (modern Gallipoli). Theodosius, stripped of his armed forces, admitted defeat, sending the Magister militum per Orientem Anatolius to negotiate peace terms. The terms were harsher than the previous treaty: the Emperor agreed to hand over 6,000 Roman pounds (ca. 2000 kg) of gold as punishment for having disobeyed the terms of the treaty during the invasion; the yearly tribute was tripled, rising to 2,100 Roman pounds (ca. 700 kg) in gold; and the ransom for each Roman prisoner rose to 12 solidi.

Their demands met for a time, the Hun kings withdrew into the interior of their empire. According to Jordanes (following Priscus), following the Huns' withdrawal from Byzantium (probably around 445), Bleda died, killed in a hunting accident arranged by his brother, Attila. Attila then took the throne for himself, becoming the sole ruler of the Huns.

Sole ruler

Mór Than's painting The Feast of Attila, based on a fragment of Priscus.

In 447 Attila again rode south into the Eastern Roman Empire through Moesia. The Roman army under the Gothic magister militum Arnegisclus met him in the Battle of the Utus and was defeated, though not without inflicting heavy losses. The Huns were left unopposed and rampaged through the Balkans as far as Thermopylae. Constantinople itself was saved by the Isaurian troops of the magister militum per Orientem Zeno and protected by the intervention of the prefect Constantinus, who organized the reconstruction of the walls that had been previously damaged by earthquakes, and, in some places, to construct a new line of fortification in front of the old. An account of this invasion survives:

The barbarian nation of the Huns, which was in Thrace, became so great that more than a hundred cities were captured and Constantinople almost came into danger and most men fled from it. ... And there were so many murders and blood-lettings that the dead could not be numbered. Ay, for they took captive the churches and monasteries and slew the monks and maidens in great numbers. (Callinicus, in his Life of Saint Hypatius)

In the West

In 450, Attila proclaimed his intent to attack the powerful Visigoth kingdom of Toulouse, making an alliance with Emperor Valentinian III in order to do so. He had previously been on good terms with the Western Roman Empire and its influential general Flavius Aëtius. Aëtius had spent a brief exile among the Huns in 433, and the troops Attila provided against the Goths and Bagaudae had helped earn him the largely honorary title of magister militum in the west. The gifts and diplomatic efforts of Geiseric, who opposed and feared the Visigoths, may also have influenced Attila's plans.

However, Valentinian's sister was Honoria, who, in order to escape her forced betrothal to a Roman senator, had sent the Hunnish king a plea for help – and her engagement ring – in the spring of 450. Though Honoria may not have intended a proposal of marriage, Attila chose to interpret her message as such. He accepted, asking for half of the western Empire as dowry. When Valentinian discovered the plan, only the influence of his mother Galla Placidia convinced him to exile, rather than kill, Honoria. He also wrote to Attila strenuously denying the legitimacy of the supposed marriage proposal. Attila sent an emissary to Ravenna to proclaim that Honoria was innocent, that the proposal had been legitimate, and that he would come to claim what was rightfully his.

The general path of the Hun forces in the invasion of Gaul.

Attila interfered in a succession struggle after the death of a Frankish ruler. Attila supported the elder son, while Aëtius supported the younger. Attila gathered his vassalsGepids, Ostrogoths, Rugians, Scirians, Heruls, Thuringians, Alans, Burgundians, among others and began his march west. In 451, he arrived in Belgica with an army exaggerated by Jordanes to half a million strong. J.B. Bury believes that Attila's intent, by the time he marched west, was to extend his kingdom – already the strongest on the continent – across Gaul to the Atlantic Ocean.

On April 7, he captured Metz. Other cities attacked can be determined by the hagiographic vitae written to commemorate their bishops: Nicasius was slaughtered before the altar of his church in Rheims; Servatus is alleged to have saved Tongeren with his prayers, as Saint Genevieve is to have saved Paris. Lupus, bishop of Troyes, is also credited with saving his city by meeting Attila in person.

Aëtius moved to oppose Attila, gathering troops from among the Franks, the Burgundians, and the Celts. A mission by Avitus, and Attila's continued westward advance, convinced the Visigoth king Theodoric I (Theodorid) to ally with the Romans. The combined armies reached Orléans ahead of Attila, thus checking and turning back the Hunnish advance. Aëtius gave chase and caught the Huns at a place usually assumed to be near Catalaunum (modern Châlons-en-Champagne). The two armies clashed in the Battle of Châlons, whose outcome is commonly considered to be a strategic victory for the Visigothic-Roman alliance. Theodoric was killed in the fighting and Aëtius failed to press his advantage, according to Edward Gibbon and Edward Creasy, because he feared the consequences of an overwhelming Visigothic triumph as much as he did a defeat. From Aëtius' point of view, the best outcome was what occurred: Theodoric died, Attila was in retreat and disarray, and the Romans had the benefit of appearing victorious.

Invasion of Italy and death

Attila returned in 452 to claim his marriage to Honoria anew, invading and ravaging Italy along the way. The city of Venice was founded as a result of these attacks when the residents fled to small islands in the Venetian Lagoon. His army sacked numerous cities and razed Aquileia completely, leaving no trace of it behind. Legend has it he built a castle on top of a hill north of Aquileia to watch the city burn, thus founding the town of Udine, where the castle can still be found. Aëtius, who lacked the strength to offer battle, managed to harass and slow Attila's advance with only a shadow force. Attila finally halted at the River Po. By this point disease and starvation may have broken out in Attila's camp, thus helping to stop his invasion.

Raphael's The Meeting between Leo the Great and Attila depicts Leo, escorted by Saint Peter and Saint Paul, meeting with the HunRome. king outside

Emperor Valentinian III sent three envoys, the high civilian officers Gennadius Avienus and Trigetius, as well as the Bishop of Rome Leo I, who met Attila at Mincio in the vicinity of Mantua, and obtained from him the promise that he would withdraw from Italy and negotiate peace with the emperor. Prosper of Aquitaine gives a short, reliable description of the historic meeting, but gives all the credit of the successful negotiation to Leo. Priscus reports that superstitious fear of the fate of Alaric—who died shortly after sacking Rome in 410—gave him pause.

In reality, Italy had suffered from a terrible famine in 451 and her crops were faring little better in 452; Attila's devastating invasion of the plains of northern Italy this year did not improve the harvest. To advance on Rome would have required supplies which were not available in Italy, and taking the city would not have improved Attila's supply situation. Therefore, it was more profitable for Attila to conclude peace and retreat back to his homeland. Secondly, an East Roman force had crossed the Danube under the command of another officer also named Aetius—who had participated in the Council of Chalcedon the previous year—and proceeded to defeat the Huns who had been left behind by Attila to safeguard their home territories. Attila, hence, faced heavy human and natural pressures to retire "from Italy without ever setting foot south of the Po." As Hydatius writes:

The Huns, who had been plundering Italy and who had also stormed a number of cities, were victims of divine punishment, being visited with heaven-sent disasters: famine and some kind of disaster. In addition, they were slaughtered by auxiliaries sent by the Emperor Marcian and led by Aetius, at the same time, they were crushed in their [home] settlements....Thus crushed, they made peace with the Romans and all retired to their homes.
—Hydatius, Chron Min. ii pp.26ff

After Attila left Italy and returned to his palace across the Danube, he planned to strike at Constantinople again and reclaim the tribute which Marcian had stopped. (Marcian was the successor of Theodosius and had ceased paying tribute in late 450 while Attila was occupied in the west; multiple invasions by the Huns and others had left the Balkans with little to plunder.) However Attila died in the early months of 453. The conventional account, from Priscus, says that at a feast celebrating his latest marriage to the beautiful and young Ildico (if uncorrupted, the name suggests a Gothic origin) he suffered a severe nosebleed and choked to death in a stupor. An alternative theory is that he succumbed to internal bleeding after heavy drinking or a condition called esophageal varices, where dilated veins in the lower part of the esophagus rupture leading to death by hemorrhage.

Another account of his death, first recorded 80 years after the events by the Roman chronicler Count Marcellinus, reports that "Attila, King of the Huns and ravager of the provinces of Europe, was pierced by the hand and blade of his wife." The Volsunga saga and the Poetic Edda also claim that King Atli (Attila) died at the hands of his wife, Gudrun. Most scholars reject these accounts as no more than hearsay, preferring instead the account given by Attila's contemporary Priscus. Priscus' version, however, has recently come under renewed scrutiny by Michael A. Babcock. Based on detailed philological analysis, Babcock concludes that the account of natural death, given by Priscus, was an ecclesiastical "cover story" and that Emperor Marcian (who ruled the Eastern Roman Empire from 450 to 457) was the political force behind Attila's death.

Jordanes says: "The greatest of all warriors should be mourned with no feminine lamentations and with no tears, but with the blood of men." His horsemen galloped in circles around the silken tent where Attila lay in state, singing in his dirge, according to Cassiodorus and Jordanes: "Who can rate this as death, when none believes it calls for vengeance?"

Then they celebrated a strava (lamentation) over his burial place with great feasting. Legend says that he was laid to rest in a triple coffin made of gold, silver, and iron, along with some of the spoils of his conquests. His men diverted a section of the river, buried the coffin under the riverbed, and then were killed to keep the exact location a secret.

His sons Ellac (his appointed successor), Dengizich, and Ernakh fought over the division of his legacy, specifically which vassal kings would belong to which brother. As a consequence they were divided, defeated and scattered the following year in the Battle of Nedao by the Ostrogoths and the Gepids under Ardaric who had been Attila's most prized chieftain.

Attila's many children and relatives are known by name and some even by deeds, but soon valid genealogical sources all but dry up and there seems to be no verifiable way to trace Attila's descendants. This has not stopped many genealogists from attempting to reconstruct a valid line of descent for various medieval rulers. One of the most credible claims has been that of the khans of Bulgaria (see Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans). A popular, but ultimately unconfirmed, attempt tries to relate Attila to Charlemagne.

Etymology of the name

The origin of Attila's name is not known with confidence. Pritsak considers it to mean "universal ruler" in a Turkic language related to Danube Bulgarian. Maenchen-Helfen suggests an East Germanic origin and rejects a Turkic etymology: "Attila is formed from Gothic or Gepidic atta, "father," by means of the diminutive suffix -ila." He suggests that Pritsak's etymology is "ingenious but for many reasons unacceptable". However, he suggests that these names were "not the true names of the Hun princes and lords. What we have are Hunnic names in Germanic dress, modified to fit the Gothic tongue, or popular Gothic etymologies, or both. Mikkola thought Attila might go back to Turkish atlïg, "famous"; [127] Poucha finds in it Tokharian atär, "hero." [128] The first etymology is too farfetched to be taken seriously, the second is nonsense."

The name has many variants in modern languages: Atli and Atle in Norse, Attila/Atilla/Etele in Hungarian (all the three name variants are used in Hungary; Attila is the most popular variant), Etzel in the German Nibelungenlied, or Attila, Atila or Atilla in modern Turkish.

Appearance, character

There is no surviving first-person account of Attila's appearance. There is, however, a possible second-hand source, provided by Jordanes, who cites a description given by Priscus. It suggests a person of Asian features.

Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and tanned skin, showing evidence of his origin.

Attila has been portrayed in various ways, sometimes as a noble ruler, sometimes as a cruel barbarian. Attila is known in Western history and tradition as the grim flagellum dei (Latin: "Scourge of God"), and his name has become a byword for cruelty and barbarism. Some of this may have arisen from confusion between him and later steppe warlords such as Genghis Khan and Timur (Tamerlane). All have been regarded as cruel, clever, and blood-thirsty lovers of battle and pillage; all have been recorded mainly by their enemies. The reality of his character is probably more complex. Priscus also recounts his meeting with an eastern Roman captive who admired Hunnic governance over Roman, so that he had no desire to return to his former country, and the Byzantine historian's description of Attila's humility and simplicity is unambiguous in its admiration.[citation needed]

Later folklore and iconography

Illustration of the meeting from the Chronicon Pictum, ca. 1360
Image with horns on a medallion at the base of the facade of Certosa di Pavia (16. c) The Latin inscription tells that "this is Attila, the scourge of God".

Legendary accounts of the meeting of Leo I and Attila, a pious "fable which has been represented by the pencil of Raphael and the chisel of Algardi" (as Gibbon called it) say that the Pope, aided by Saint Peter and Saint Paul, convinced Attila to turn away from the city.[citation needed] According to a version of this legend related in the Chronicon Pictum, a mediaeval Hungarian chronicle, the Pope promised Attila that if he left Rome in peace, one of his successors would receive a holy crown (which has been understood as referring to the Holy Crown of Hungary).

Some histories and chronicles describe him as a great and noble king, and he plays major roles in three Norse sagas: Atlakviða, Völsungasaga, and Atlamál. The Polish Chronicle represents Attila's name as Aquila.[citation needed]

In modern Hungary and in Turkey "Attila" and its Turkish variation "Atilla" are commonly used as a male first name. In Hungary, several public places are named after Attila; for instance, in Budapest there are 10 Attila Streets, one of which is an important street behind the Buda Castle, and an Attila Lane. See Public place names of Budapest.[citation needed] When the Turkish Armed Forces invaded in Cyprus in 1974 the operations were named after Attila (Atilla I & Atilla II).

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila

Ali Ibn Rabban Al-Tabari

Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari (Persian: علی ابن سهل ربان طبری) (c. 838–c. 870 CE) was a Muslim hakim, Islamic scholar, physician and psychologist of Jewish or Zoroastrian descent, who produced the first encyclopedia of medicine. He was a pioneer of pediatrics and the field of child development. His stature, however, was eclipsed by his more famous pupil, Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi ("Rhazes").

Ali came from a well-known Jewish family of Merv in Tabaristan (hence al-Tabari – "from Tabaristan") but became an Islamic convert under the Abbassid caliph Al-Mu'tasim (833-842), who took him into the service of the court, in which he continued under Al-Mutawakkil (847-861). His father Sahl ibn Bishr was a famous Astrologer.

Ali ibn Sahl was fluent in Syriac and Greek, the two sources for the medical tradition of antiquity, which was lost to medieval Europe, and versed in fine calligraphy.

His works

  1. His Firdous al-Hikmah ("Paradise of Wisdom"), which he wrote in Arabic called also Al-Kunnash was a system of medicine in seven parts. He also translated it into Syriac, to give it wider usefulness. The information in Firdous al-Hikmah has never entered common circulation in the West because it was not edited until the 20th century, when Mohammed Zubair Siddiqui assembled an edition using the five surviving partial manuscripts. There is still no English translation.
  2. Tuhfat al-Muluk ("The King's Present")
  3. a work on the proper use of food, drink, and medicines.
  4. Hafzh al-Sihhah ("The Proper Care of Health"), following Greek and Indian authorities.
  5. Kitab al-Ruqa ("Book of Magic or Amulets")
  6. Kitab fi al-hijamah ("Treatise on Cupping")
  7. Kitab fi Tartib al-'Ardhiyah ("Treatise on the Preparation of Food")


Firdous al-Hikmah

Firdous al-Hikmah was the first known encyclopedia of medicine, and was divided into 7 sections and 30 parts, with 360 chapters in total. It deals with pediatrics and child development in depth, as well as psychology and psychotherapy. In the fields of medicine and psychotherapy, the work was primarily influenced by Islamic thought and ancient Indian physicians such as Sushruta and Charaka. Unlike earlier physicians, however, al-Tabari emphasized strong ties between psychology and medicine, and the need of psychotherapy and counseling in the therapeutic treatment of patients. He wrote that patients frequently feel sick due to delusions or imagination, and that these can be treated through "wise counselling" by smart and witty physicians who could win the rapport and confidence of their patients, leading to a positive therapeutic outcome.

Quotes

On the Quran he said: "When I was a Christian I used to say, as did an uncle of mine who was one of the learned and eloquent men, that eloquence is not one of the signs of prophethood because it is common to all the peoples; but when I discarded (blind) imitation and (old) customs and gave up adhering to (mere) habit and training and reflected upon the meanings of the Qur'an I came to know that what the followers of the Qur'an claimed for it was true. The fact is that I have not found any book, be it by an Arab or a Persian, an Indian or a Greek, right from the beginning of the world up to now, which contains at the same time praises of God, belief in the prophets and apostles, exhortations to good, everlasting deeds, command to do good and prohibition against doing evil, inspiration to the desire of paradise and to avoidance of hell-fire as this Qur'an does. So when a person brings to us a book of such qualities, which inspires such reverence and sweetness in the hearts and which has achieved such an overlasting success and he is (at the same time) an illiterate person who did never learnt the art of writing or rhetoric, that book is without any doubt one of the signs of his Prophethood."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_ibn_Sahl_Rabban_al-Tabari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References

  1. ^ SN Nasr, "Life Sciences, Alchemy and Medicine", The Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge, Volume 4, 1975, p. 416:"Ali b. Rabbani Tabari who was a convert from Zoroastrianism to Islam is the author of the first major work on Islamic medicine, entitled Firdaus al-Hikma."
  2. ^ a b Amber Haque (2004), "Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim Scholars and Challenges to Contemporary Muslim Psychologists", Journal of Religion and Health 43 (4): 357-377 [361]
  3. ^ http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz1.html#Rab
  4. ^ Abdul Aleem, "I'jaz ul Qur'an", Islamic Culture, Op. Cit., pp. 222-223

Dr. Ahmad Zewail

Ahmed Hassan Zewail
Ahmed Zewail
Ahmed Zewail
Born February 26, 1946 (1946-02-26) (age 64)
Damanhour, Egypt
Nationality Egyptian
Fields Chemistry, physics
Institutions California Institute of Technology
Alma mater University of Alexandria, University of Pennsylvania
Known for Femtochemistry
Notable awards Nobel Prize for Chemistry (1999)
The Franklin Medal (1998)
(Wolf Prize 1993)
Priestley Medal (2011)

Ahmed Hassan Zewail (Arabic: أحمد حسن زويل‎) (born February 26, 1946 in Damanhour, Egypt) is an Egyptian-American scientist, and the winner of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on femtochemistry. He is the Linus Pauling Chair Professor Chemistry and Professor of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. Dr. Zewail has been nominated and will participate in President Barack Obama's Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The council will talk about education, science, defense, energy, the economy, and technology.

Birth and education

Ahmad Zewail was born on February 26, 1946 in Damanhour and raised in Disuq. He received bachelor's degree and MS degree from the University of Alexandria before moving from Egypt to the United States to complete his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania with advisor Dr. Robin Hochstrasser. He completed a post-doctoral fellowship at the University of California, Berkeley.

Academic career

After some post doctorate work at UC-Berkeley, he was awarded a faculty appointment at Caltech in 1976, where he has remained since. He became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1982, and in 1990, he was made the first Linus Pauling Chair in Chemical Physics.

Research

Zewail's key work has been as the pioneer of femtochemistry—i.e. the study of chemical reactions across femtoseconds. Using a rapid ultrafast laser technique (consisting of ultrashort laser flashes), the technique allows the description of reactions on very short time scales - short enough to analyse transition states in selected chemical reactions.

In 1999, Zewail became the third ethnic Egyptian to receive the Nobel Prize, following Egyptian president Anwar Al-Sadat (1978 in Peace) and Naguib Mahfouz (1988 in Literature). Other international awards include the Wolf Prize in Chemistry (1993) awarded to him by the Wolf Foundation, the Tolman Medal (1997), the Robert A. Welch Award (1997), and the Priestley Medal from the American Chemical Society in 2011. In 1999, he received Egypt's highest state honor, the Grand Collar of the Nile.

Zewail was awarded a PHD. Honoris Causa by Lund University in Sweden in May 2003 and is a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Cambridge University awarded him an Honorary Doctorate in Science in 2006. In May 2008, Zewail received a PhD Honoris Causa from Complutense University of Madrid. In February, 2009, Zewail was awarded an honorary PhD in arts and sciences by the University of Jordan.[2] In May 2010, he received a PhD Honoris Causa in Humane Letters from Southwestern University.

Zewail is married, and has four children.

Political work

In his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University, US President Barack Obama announced a new Science Envoy program as part of a "new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world." In January, 2010 Ahmed Zewail, Elias Zerhouni, and Bruce Alberts became the first US science envoys to Islam, visiting Muslim-majority countries from North Africa to Southeast Asia.

Possible presidential candidacy

When asked about the rumors that he might run for Egyptian presidential election in 2011 and his political ambitions, Ahmed Zewail Said: "I am a frank man .. I have no political ambition, as I have stressed repeatedly that I only want to serve Egypt in the field of science and die as a scientist."

Publications

  • (1) Advances in Laser Spectroscopy I, ed. A. H. Zewail, SPIE, Bellingham, 1977
  • (2) Advances in Laser Chemistry, ed. A. H. Zewail, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg,

1978

  • (3) Photochemistry and Photobiology, Vols. 1 and 2, ed. A. H. Zewail, Harwood

Academic, London, 1983

  • (4) Ultrafast Phenomena VII, eds. C. B. Harris, E. P. Ippen, G. A. Mourou and A. H.

Zewail, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 1990

  • (5) The Chemical Bond: Structure and Dynamics, ed. A. H. Zewail, Academic

Press, Boston, 1992

  • (6) Ultrafast Phenomena VIII, eds. J.-L. Martin, A. Migus, G. A. Mourou, and A. H.

Zewail, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 1993

  • (7) Ultrafast Phenomena IX , eds.
  • (8) Age of Science.
  • (13) Physical Biology: From Atoms to Medicine, ed. A. H. Zewail, Imperial College Press,

London, 2008

References From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  1. ^ "Zewail Wins 2011 Priestley Medal", Chemical & Engineering News, p 5, June 21, 2010.
  2. ^ Kheetan, Thameen (26 February 2009). "Egyptian Nobel laureate calls for ‘scientific renaissance’ in Arab world". Jordan Times. http://jordantimes.com/?news=14610&searchFor=zewail. Retrieved 2009-02-28.
  3. ^ America.gov
  4. ^ Zewail: I have no political ambitions .. I would like service of Egypt a scientist only

Lt. Adnan Saidi

This is a Malay name; the name "Saidi" is a patronymic, not a family name, and the person should be referred to by the given name, "Adnan".
Adnan bin Saidi
1915 – 14 February 1942
Place of birth Kajang, Selangor
Place of death Pasir Panjang, Singapore
Allegiance Royal Malay Regiment
Years of service 1933 - 1942
Rank 2nd Lieutenant
Unit 7th Platoon, C Company, 1st Malay Brigade
Battles/wars Battle of Pasir Panjang
Awards Best recruit in the Malay Regiment
(3 British medals)

Adnan bin Saidi, (1915 - 14 February 1942), was a Malayan soldier of the 1st Infantry Brigade which fought the Japanese in the Battle of Singapore. He is regarded by Malaysians and Singaporeans today as a hero for his actions on Bukit Chandu.

Personal life

Adnan was born at Sungai Ramal near Kajang, Selangor and was a Muslim of Minangkabau descent. He was the eldest child in his whole family. His younger siblings, Ahmad Saidi and Amarullah Saidi, were also soldiers. Ahmad was killed in action after his ship, HMS Pelanduk, was sunk by the Japanese en route to Australia. Amarullah survived the war and now resides in Kajang, Selangor.

Adnan was married to his wife Sophia Pakir, an Islamic religious teacher. She died in 1949. They had two sons and a daughter, who died soon after birth. Their sons, Mokhtar and Zainudin Adnan now live in the state's of Seremban and Johor respectively.

My father did not talk a lot. He was a firm man and believed in discipline. He was always serious and fierce… yet had a good heart. There seemed to be a ‘light’ illuminating his face. - Mokhtar, Adnan's son

[citation needed]

Battle of Pasir Panjang

Adnan led a 42-strong platoon from the Malay Regiment in the defense of Singapore against the invading Japanese. The soldiers fought at the Battle of Pasir Panjang, at Pasir Panjang Ridge in the Bukit Chandu (Opium Hill) area on 12–14 February 1942. Although heavily outnumbered, Adnan refused to surrender and urged his men to fight until the end. They held off the Japanese for two days amid heavy enemy shelling and shortages of food and ammunition. Adnan was shot but carried on fighting. After the battle was lost, they wounded Adnan.Then he was taken prisoner by Japanese soldiers, who tied him to a cherry tree and bayoneted him to death.

Because of his actions Adnan is currently considered by Malaysians and Singaporeans today as a hero. In their textbooks, he is also credited as the soldier who caught the disguised "Indian troops" marching error in four abreast (Japanese marching style) instead of a line of three (British style of marching).

When Singapore surrendered, the Japanese Kempeitai attempted but failed to find and murder Adnan's family in revenge.[citation needed]

Kent Ridge Park, close to the site of the battle, now bears a plaque in commemoration of Lt Adnan Bin Saidi. A museum at Bukit Chandu stands in memory of the bravery of Malay Regiment soldiers. This regiment would later become the Royal Malay Regiment of the Royal Malaysian Army.

The Malaysian version of the Turkish-designed ACV-300 infantry fighting vehicle currently in service with the Malaysian Army was given the name "Adnan" in honour of Lt. Adnan.

In Sungai Ramal, Kajang there is one primary school Sekolah Kebangsaan Leftenan Adnan was named after him.

Portrayal in film

Adnan was portrayed by actor Hairie Othman in the 2000 film Leftenan Adnan. He was also portrayed by an unknown Malay actor in the TV series A War Diary. Aaron Aziz is the latest actor to have portrayed him in Life Story, which also covers his personal life.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References

Abu 'Uthman 'Amr ibn Bakr al-Basri Al-Jahiz

al-JAHIZ, Abu 'Uthman 'Amr b. Bahr al-Fuqaymi al-Basri, was a famous Arab prose writer,
the author of works of adab, Mu'tazili theology and politico-religious polemics. Born at Basra
about 160/776 in an obscure family of mawali from the Banu Kinana and probably of Abyssinian
origin, he owes his sobriquet to a malformation of the eyes (jahiz = with a projecting cornea).
Little is known of his childhood in Basra, except that from an early age an invincible desire for
learning and a remarkably inquisitive mind urged him towards a life of independence and,
much to his family's despair, idleness. Mixing with groups which gathered at the mosque
(masdhidiyyun) to discuss a wide range of questions, attending as a spectator the philological
enquiries conducted on the Mirbad [q.v.] and following lectures by the most learned men of the
day on philology, lexicography and poetry, namely al-Asma'i, Abu 'Ubayda, Abu Zayd, he soon
acquired real mastery of the Arabic language along with the usual and traditional culture. His
precocious intelligence won him admittance to Mu'tazili circles and bourgeois salons, where
conversation, often light, was also animated by problems confronting the Muslim conscience at
that time: in the realm of theology, harmonizing faith and reason and, in politics, the thorny
question of the Caliphate which was constantly brought up by the enemies of the 'Abbasids, the
conflicts between Islamic sects and the claims of the non-Arabs. His penetrating observation of
the various elements in a mixed population increased his knowledge of human nature, whilst
reading books of all kinds which were beginning to circulate in Basra gave him some outlook on
to the outside world. It is quite certain that the intellectual resources offered by his home town
would have been fully adequate to give al-Jahiz a broad culture but the 'Iraqi metropolis, then
at its apogee, had a decisive influence in helping to form his mind. It left its rationalist and
realist imprint so clearly on him, that al-Jahiz might be considered not only one of the most
eminent products of his home town, but its most complete representative, for the knowledge he
subsequently acquired in Baghdad did not modify to any noticeable degree his turn of mind as it
had been formed at Basra; Basra is the continuous thread running through all his works.

Although he probably began writing earlier, the first proof of his literary activity dates from
roughly t00/815-6; it relates to an event which had a decisive effect on his subsequent career.
Some works (the plural is no longer in doubt) on the imamate, a very characteristic subject, won
him the compliments of al-Ma'mun and thereby that consecration by the capital coveted by so
many provincials eager to have their talent recognized and so reach the court and establish
themselves. From then on, without completely abandoning Basra, al-Jahiz frequently stayed for
long periods in Baghdad (and later Samarra) devoting himself to literary work of which an
appreciable part, fortunately, has been spared the ravages of time.

In spite of some slender indications, it is not really known on what we relied for his income in
Basra. In Baghdad, we know, he discharged for three days the functions of scribe and was very
briefly assistant to Ibrahim b. al-'Abbas al-‘uli at the Chancellery; it is also probable that he was
a teacher, and he records himself an interview he claims to have had with al-Mutawakkil who,
anxious to entrust him with the education of his children, finally dismissed him because of his
ugliness. Although information about his private and public life is not readily forthcoming from
either his biographers or himself, it appears from what knowledge we have that al-Jahiz held
no official post and took on no regular employment. He admits, however, that he received
considerable sums for the dedications of his books and we know that for a time at least he was
made an allowance by the diwan. These fragmentary indications are indeed confusing and tend
to suggest that al-Jahiz who otherwise, unlike some of his fellow countrymen, does not appear
to have led the life of a courtier, acted the part of an eminence grise, so to speak, or of unofficial
adviser at least. We have seen already that the writings which won him the recognition of the
capital dealt with the Caliphate and were certainly intended to justify the accession to power of
the 'Abbasids; they were the prelude of a whole series of opuscules addressed to the authorities, if
not inspired by them, and relating to topical events; notwithstanding some degree of artifice in
risalas beginning: 'Thou hast asked me about such and such a question .... I answer thee that
...', it may be presumed that in many cases the question had in fact been asked and he had been
requested to reply in writing. For, if he was never admitted to the intimacy of the Caliphs, he
was in continuous contact with leading political figures and it is rather curious that he should
have attached himself successively to Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Malik al-Zayyat [q.v.], then after the
latter's fall from favour (t33/847) which almost proved fatal to both men, to the qadi al-qudat (d.
t40/854) Ahmad b. Abi Du'ad [q.v.] and to his son Muhammad (d. t39/853) and finally to
al-Fath b. khaqan [q.v.] (d. t47/861).

He nevertheless retained ample independence and was able to take advantage of his new
position to further his intellectual training and to travel (particularly to Syria; but al-Mas'udi,
Murudh, i, t06, was to criticize him for having attempted to write a geography book--now almost
entirely lost--without having traveled enough). In Baghdad also he found a rich store of
learning in the many translations from Greek undertaken during the Caliphate of al-Ma'mum
and studying the philosophers of antiquity--especially Aristotle (cf. al-HadhiÜi, Takhridh nusus
aristataliyya min K. al-Hayawan, in Madhallat kulliyyat al-adab, Alexandria, 1953 ff.)--enabled him to
broaden his outlook and perfect his own theological doctrine, which he had begun to elaborate
under the supervision of the great Mu'tazilis of the day, of whom al-Nazzam and øhumama b.
Ashras [qq.v.], who seems to have had a strong influence on him, should be placed in the first
rank.

Towards the end of his life, suffering from hemiplegia, he retired to his home town, where he
died in Muharram t55/December 868-January 869.

Like many Arabic writers, al-Jahiz had a very great output. A catalogue of his works (see
Arabica, 1956/t) lists nearly t00 titles of which only about thirty, authentic or apocryphal, have
been preserved, in their entirety; about fifty others have been partially preserved, whilst the rest
seem irremediably lost. Brockelmann (S I, t41 ff.) has attempted to classify his works according
to real or supposed subjects and gives us some idea of the breadth and variety of his interests.
Considering only the extant works, which now for the most part are available in editions of
varying quality, two broad categories may be distinguished: on the one hand, works coming
under the head of Jahizian adab, that is to say intended in a rather entertaining manner to
instruct the reader, with the author intervening only insofar as he selects, presents and
comments on documents; on the other hand, original works, dissertations where his ability as a
writer and to some extent his efforts as a thinker are more clearly shown.

His chief work in the first category is K. al-Hayawan (ed. Harun, Cairo n.d, 7 vols..) which is not so
much a bestiary as a genuine anthology based on animals, leading off sometimes rather
unexpectedly into theology, metaphysics, sociology etc.; one can even find embryonic theories,
without it being possible to say how far they are original, of the evolution of species, the
influence of climate and animal psychology, which were not to be developed till the nineteenth
century. Following K. al-Hayawan, which was never completed, came K. al-Bighal (ed. Pellat, Cairo
1955). K. al-Bayan wa 'l-tabyin (ed. Harun, Cairo 1367/1948-50, 4 vols, and other editions) seems
fundamentally to be an inventory of what have been called the 'Arabic humanities', designed
to stress the oratorical and poetic ability of Arabs; he attempts to justify his choice by positing
the bases of an art of poetry, but he does so in an extremely disorderly fashion, as was pointed
out by Abu Hilal al-'Askari, K. al-‘ina'atayn, 5, who decided to write a more systematic treatise.

Another quality of the Arabs, generosity, is emphasized in K. al-Bukhala (ed. al-Hadhiri, Cairo
1948 and other editions; Ger. tr. O. Rescher, Excerpti ..; Fr. tr. Ch. Pellat, Paris 1951), which is
at the same time a portrait gallery, an attack on non-Arabs and an analysis of avarice, the
equivalent of which is not to be found anywhere in Arabic literature. His acute powers of
observation, his light-hearted scepticism, his comic sense and satirical turn of mind fit him
admirably to portray human types and society; he uses all his skill at the expense of
several social groups (schoolmasters, singers, scribes etc.) generally keeping within the bounds of
decency; only K. Mufakharat al-dhawari wa 'l-ghilman (ed. Pellat, Beirut 1957), dealing with a delicate
subject, is marred by obscenity, whilst K. al-qiyan (ed. Finkel), which is about slave-girl singers,
contains pages of remarkable shrewdness. But this work really belongs to the second category,
which includes the dissertations assembled by Kraus and Hadhiri: al-Ma'ad wa 'l-ma'ash, al-Sirr wa
hifz al-lisan, al-Jidd wa 'l-hazl, Fasl ma bayn al-'adawa wa 'l-hasad, and several other texts published

either by al-Sandubi or in the 11 Risala. One might also add the politico-religious works, now for
the most part lost, perhaps even deliberately destroyed when Sunnism finally triumphed over
Mu'tazilism. Of those still extant, the most voluminous is K. al-'Uthmaniyya (ed. Harun, Cairo
1374/1955; see Arabica, 1956/3) in which al-Jahiz asserts the legitimacy of the first three
Caliphs, attacks the claims of the Shi'a and thereby justifies the accession of the 'Abbasids to
power. No less important is K. Taswib 'Ali fi tahkim al-hakamayn (ed. Pellat, in Machriq, July 1958),
unfortunately incomplete and defective but clearly directed against the outdated partisans of the
Umayyads, who again were enemies of the 'Abbasids. In this respect Risala fi 'l-Nabita (or fi Bani
Umayya) is interesting also (see Pellat's translation, in AIEO Alger, 195t), for it is nothing short of
a report by al-Jahiz to the son of Ahmad b. Abi Du'ad on the political situation, the causes of
division in the community and the danger presented by the nabita, that is the neo-hashwiyya, who
were reviving Mu'awiya for their own ends and using the kalam to support their theses; Risala fi
nafyi 'l-tashbih (ed. Pellat, in Machriq, 1953) is in the same manner. Revealing of the
correspondences between government policy and al-Jahiz's activity are K. al-Radd
'ala 'l-Nasara (see Allouche's translation, in Hesp., 1939) and Risala fi manaqib al-Turk, dealing
respectively with measures taken against the Jimmis and the forming of the Turkish guard.
Generally speaking, in politics al-Jahiz shows himself irresolute Mu'tazili, that is an apologist of
the 'Abbasids against the pro-Umayyad movement of the Nabita, the Shu'ubis and the Shi'a; but
his highly personal manner of presenting facts tends to mislead his readers and in all probability
the pro-'Alid al-Mas'udi in Murudh, vi, 55 ff. misunderstood the true significance of his writings. If
the chronology of al-Jahiz's work could be established, one would probably see that after
warning the authorities against the regression that might be the result of abandoning
Mu'tazilism, he gave up the struggle once Sunni reaction had won the day and from then on
restricted himself to purely literary activity; the fact that he wrote K. al-Bukhala' in the latter part
of his life supports this hypothesis.

As in politics so in theology al-Jahiz was a Mu'tazili, though his doctrine appears to offer hardly
any original features; as the writings where he expounded are for the most part lost, one has to
make do with occasional annotations in al-khayyat, K. al-Intisar, translated and edited by A. N.
Nader, Beirut 1957, and with data supplied by the heresiographers (al-Baghdadi, Farq, 160 ff.;
Ibn Hazm, Fisal, iv, 181, 195; al-Shahrastani, on the margin of Ibn Hazm, i, 95-6; etc.; see also,
Horten, Die phil. Systeme der spekulativen Theologen im Islam, 3t0 ff.; L. Gardet and M. M. Anawati,
Introd. a la Theologie musulmane, index; A. N. Nader, Le Systemeqphilosophique des Mu'tazila, Beirut
1956, index) which summarize or indicate points where al-Jahiz differs from other Mu'tazilis.
Too little is known of the doctrine itself for one to be able to do more at this stage than simply
refer to the article mu'tazila, pending the completion of a thesis specifically concerned with the
question.

Meanwhile, even though Jahiz's place in the development of Muslim thought is far from
negligible, he is chiefly interesting as a writer and an adib, for with him form is never
overshadowed by content; even in purely technical works. If he is not the first of the great Arab
prose writers, if in rhetoric 'Abd Allah b. al-Muqaffa' [q.v.] and Sahl b. Harun [q.v.], to name but
two, are his masters, nevertheless he gave literary prose its most perfect form, as was indeed
recognized first by politicians who made use of his talent for the 'Abbasid cause and then by
Arab critics who were unanimous in asserting his superiority and making his name the very
symbol of literary ability.

Al-Jahiz's writing is characterized by deliberately contrived disorderliness and numerous
digressions; the individuality of his alert and lively style lies in a concern for the exact term--a
foreign word if necessary--picturesque phrases and sentences which are nearly always
unrhymed, but balanced by the repetition of the same idea in two different forms; what would
be pointless repetition to our way of thinking, in the mind of a 3rd/9th century writer simply
arose from the desire to make himself clearly understood and to give ordinary prose the
symmetry of verse; though difficult to render and appreciate in a foreign language, the flow of
his sentences is perfectly harmonious and instantly recognizable. Nevertheless, for the majority
of literate Arabs al-Jahiz remains, if not a complete buffoon, at least something of a jester; his
place as such in legend can undoubtedly be attributed in part to his fame and his ugliness, which
made him the hero of numerous anecdotes; but it must also be attributed to a characteristic of
his writing which could not but earn him the reputation of being a joker in a Muslim world
inclined towards soberness and gravity; for he never fails, even in his weightiest passages, to slip
in anecdotes, witty observations and amusing comments. Alarmed at the dullness and boredom
enshrouding the speculations of a good many of his contemporaries, he deliberately aimed at a
lighter touch and his sense of humour enabled him to deal entertainingly with serious subjects
and help popularize them. But he realized he was doing something rather shocking and one
cannot help being struck by the frequency with which he feels it necessary to plead the cause of
humour and fun; the best example is in K. al-Tarbi' wa 'l-tadwir (ed. Pellat, Damascus 1955) a
masterpiece of ironic writing, as well as a compendium of all the questions to which his
contemporaries whether through force of habit, imitative instinct or lack of imagination offered
traditional solutions or gave no thought at all. Without stepping outside the boundaries of the
faith--this itself was something of a strain--he takes for granted the right to submit to scrutiny
accepted attitudes to natural phenomena, ancient history and legends handed down as truths,
to restate problems and skilfully suggest rational solutions. Nor is that all; for at a time when
mediaeval Arabic culture was taking shape, he brought together what seemed of most value to
him, drawing either on the Arab heritage, of which he was a passionate defender, or on Greek
thought,qalways careful however to curb the intrusion of the Persian tradition, which he
considered too dangerous for the future of Islam, into the culture he longed to bestow on his
co-religionists. This vast undertaking, based on the spirit of criticism and systematic doubt in
everything not directly concerned with the dogma of Islam, was unfortunately to be to a
considerable extent narrowed and side-tracked in the centuries to follow. It is true that al-Jahiz
was to have admirers as noteworthy as Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi, imitators and even
counterfeiters, who made use of his name to ensure greater success for their works; but posterity
has only kept a deformed and shrunken image of him, seeing him at the most as a master of
rhetoric (see Pellat, in al-And., 1956/t, t77-84), the founder of a Mu'tazili school--whose
disciples no one bothers to enumerate--and the author of compilations to be drawn upon for
the elaboration of works of adab, a sizeable share of recorded information on jahiliyya and the
early centuries of Islam.
(Ch. Pellat)


The main biographies are those of khatib Baghdadi, xii, t1t-tt

Ibn 'Asakir, in MMIA, ix, t03-17

Yaqut, Irshad, vi, 56-80. A general outline is to be found in manuals of Arabic literature, as
also in: Sh. Jabri, al-Jahiz mu'allim al-'aql wa 'l-adab, Cairo 1351/193t

kh. Mardam, al-Jahiz, Damascus 1349/1930

t. Kayyali, al-Jahiz, [Damascus] n.d.

H. Fakhuri, al-Jahiz, Cairo [1953]

M. Kurd 'Ali, Umara' al-bayan, Cairo 1355/1937

H. Sandubi, Adab al-Jahiz, Cairo 1350/1931

Ch. Pellat, Le Milieu basrien et la formation de Gahiz, Paris 1953

idem, Gahiz a Bagdad et a Samarra, in RSO, 195t, 47-67

idem, Gahiziana in Arabica, 1954/t, 1955/3 and mainly 1956/t: Essai d'inventaire de l'aeuvre
Æahizienne, with an account of mss, editions and translations (one should add to the
bibliography: A. J. Arberry, New material on the Kitab al-Fihrist of Ibn al-Nadim, in Isl. Research
Assoc. Miscellany, i, 1948, which gives the notice from Fihrist on Jahiz, missing in the
editions

and also: F. Gabrieli, in Scritti in onore di G. Furlani, Rome 1957, on the R. fi manaqib al-Turk

the Tunisian review al-Fikr, Oct. 1957 and March 1958, on the R. al-qiyan)

J. Jabre, al-Jahiz et la societe de son temps (in Arabic, Beirut 1957 (?), not consulted here). It
should be pointed out that in addition to the editions quoted in the course of the article, the
following collections have been published: G. van Vloten, Tria opuscula, Leyden 1903

J. Finkel, Three essays, Cairo 19t6

P. Kraus and M. T. Hadhiri, Madhmu' rasa'il al-Jahiz, Cairo 1943 (a French translation of
these texts is being prepared)

H. Sandubi, Rasa'il al-Jahiz, Cairo 135t/1933

Ihda 'ashrata risala, Cairo 13t4/1906

O. Rescher, Excerpte und Übersetzungen aus den Schriften des ... Gahiz, Stuttgart 1931 (analytical
translation of a good many texts). The texts in the three manuscript collections: Damad
Ibrahim Pasha 949

Br. Mus. 11t9 and Berlin 503t (see Oriens, 1954, 85-6) have in a good many cases been
published

those not yet published, along with some other texts of less importance, will be included in our
Nusus Gahiziyya ghayr manshura. K. al-'Urdhan, etc. has been recently discovered in Morocco, but
is of no great interest.


Philosophy Home - Encyclopedia Home

Source: from the Encyclopedia of Islam --© 1999 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ei2/JAHIZ.htm