western like the renaissance

Western like the Renaissance

It usually means the Renaissance of the 14th to 17th centuries, starting in Italy then sprawling throughout the rest of Europe. It's called the Western Renaissance because other cultures in other parts of the world have had their own renaissances, such as in India, Persia, and China.

A renaissance, culturally speaking, is whenever a people decide to reinvasion and return to classical images, ideas, symbols, thinkers, artists, and writers. In the West, the renaissance revisited the culture of ancient Greece and Rome.

At all events the Renaissance was heralded through the recovery by Italian scholars of Greek and Roman classical literature. When the movement began, the civilization of Greece and Rome had long been exerting a partial influence, not only upon Italy, but on other parts of mediaeval Europe as well. But in Italy especially, when the wave of barbarism had passed, the people began to feel a returning consciousness of their ancient culture, and a desire to reproduce it. To Italians the Latin language was easy, and their country abounded in documents and monumental records which symbolized past greatness.

The modern Italian spirit was produced through the combination of various elements, among which were the political institutions brought by the Lombard’s from Germany, the influence of chivalry and other northern forms of civilization, and the more immediate power of the Church. That which was foreshadowed in the thirteenth century became in the fourteenth a distinct National development, which, as Symonds, its most discerning interpreter, shows us, was constructing a model for the whole western world. The word "renaissance" has of late years received a more extended Significance than that which is implied in our English equivalent – the "Revival of learning." We use it to denote the whole transition from the Middle Ages to the modern world; and though it is possible to assign certain Limits to the period during which this transition took place, we cannot fix on Any dates so positively as to say between this year and that the movement was accomplished. To do so would be like trying to name the days on which spring in any particular season began and ended. Yet we speak of spring as different from winter and from summer.

The truth is that in many senses we are still in mid-Renaissance. The evolution has not been completed. The new life is our own and is progressive. As in the transformation scene of some pantomime, so here the waning and the waxing shapes are mingled; the new forms, at first shadowy and filmy, gain upon the old; and now both blend; and now the old scene fades into the background; still, who shall say whether the new scene be finally set up? In like manner we cannot refer the whole phenomena of the Renaissance to any one cause or circumstance, or limit them within the field of any one department of human knowledge. If we ask the students of art what they mean by the Renaissance, they will reply that it was the revolution affected in architecture, painting, and sculpture by the recovery of antique monuments. Students of literature, philosophy, and theology see in the Renaissance that

discovery of manuscripts, that passion for antiquity, that progress in philology and criticism, which led to a correct knowledge of the classics, to a fresh taste in poetry, to new systems of thought, to more accurate analysis, and finally to the Lutheran schism and the emancipation of the conscience. Men of science will discourse about the discovery of the solar system by Copernicus and Galileo, the anatomy of Vesalius, and Harvey's theory of theCirculation of the blood. The origination of a truly scientific method is the point which interests them most in the Renaissance. The political historian, again, has his own answer to the question. The extinction of feudalism, the development of the great nationalities of Europe, the growth of monarchy, the limitation of the ecclesiastical authority, and the erection of the papacy into an Italian kingdom, and in the last place the gradual emergence of that sense of popular freedom which exploded in the Revolution: these are the aspects of the movement which engross his attention.

Beginning and Progress of the RenaissanceR. A. Guise, University of California

1. ROMANTIC MOVEMENT

The Romantic Movement in literature began around the end of the 18th century in Western Europe and flourished in the first half of the 19th century. It was in part a rebellion against the Enlightenment of the previous century and its focus on scientific and rational thought. Romantic literature is characterized by an emphasis on emotion, passion, and the natural world. Nationalism was an important factor in the Romantic Movement, and many authors turned to folk tales and native mythologies as source material. A return to the aesthetics and ethos of the medieval period also featured strongly in the Romantic sensibility.

Some of the earliest examples of Romantic literature emerged in Germany, where the most important literary figure of the period was Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. His first novel, The Sorrows of Young Werther (1774), about a young, sensitive artist, was popular throughout Europe. Goethe also used myth and local folklore as subjects for his poetry and helped inspire a sense of German nationalism in the decades before a unified Germany. The American and French Revolutions in the late 18th century added to the popularity of such romantic ideals as freedom, liberty, and national pride.

Romanticism dominated English literature throughout the 19th century. Romantic poetry, in particular, is among the most important work of the period. Notable Romantic poets from Britain include William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, William Blake, Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, and John Keats. Common themes in their work include religious fervor, nature, Ancient Greek aesthetics, and emotional response to beauty. Romantic novels were also popular in 19th century Britain, often in the form of the Gothic novel, which exploited such emotions as fear and romantic love. Some well known

examples are Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818), Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights (1847), and Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre (1847).

Romantic literature also flourished in the young United States. Much of it was also in the Gothic vein, such as the work of Edgar Allen Poe, Washington Irving, and Nathaniel Hawthorne. Transcendentalists like Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson stressed the beauty of nature and man's identity as a natural being, themes echoed in the later work of poet Walt Whitman. James Fennimore Cooper focused on the nationalist aspect of Romanticism with his tales of the American frontier and Native Americans.

Romanticism also influenced the literature of other countries, although not as extensively as those discussed above. In France, the novels of Victor Hugo and Stendhal showed some Romantic influence, but they are more often characterized as part of the Realist movement. In Eastern Europe, Russian writers Alexander Pushkin and Mikhail Lermontov, as well as Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz, were among the practitioners of the Romantic movement.

The Romantic Movement brought a change in the way people thought about art, writing, and other creative endeavors. The era of Romanticism began in the 1700s and lasted into the mid nineteenth century. The word Romantic, in this case, refers to a shift in thinking and not a scenario of two singles on a date. The writers and artists of the Romantic Movement created work that celebrated nature and the spirit of the individual. Emotion, imagination, and independent thinking are three common ingredients often found in the creative work of this particular era. In fact, with the arrival of the Romantic Movement the stale rules of convention and traditional thinking were quickly tossed out to make way for a whole new approach to artistic creation.

This was regarded as undesirable and leading to the degradation of humans. According to the Romantics, the solution was “back to nature” because nature was seen as pure and a spiritual source of renewal. It was also a way out of the fumes of the growing industrial centres for the new rich. Inspired by romantics such as Worthworth, Keats and Shelly, they hopped on the newly developed railways and travelled to the Lake District. This led in the end to an appreciation of the landscape, described in terms as the “Sublime” and also “Delight” (in the landscape). Spoliation of a pure natural landscape was regarded as undesirable and destructive. These ideas are still with us and led the way for modern day conservation en environmentalism as well as outdoor recreation and appreciation for natural and historical heritage.

With the reign of Queen Victoria beginning in 1837, the Romantic movement was on its way out. Prosperity and advances in science and technology improved living conditions for the masses, and a large middle class emerged. This powerful group championed social reform, further improving living and working conditions for most British subjects. As a result of all these components, a new type of literature largely replaced romanticism. The Victorian Age had begun.

2. WAHABI MOVEMENT:

The term ‘Wahhabi’ is a deeply contested and much debated one. It is derived from the name of the eighteenth century Najdi Hanbali Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, although, interestingly enough, Abdul Wahhab was not his name but that of his father. That itself clearly indicates that the term is rather loosely used and is often employed to refer to different, sometimes mutually contradictory phenomena. It is instructive to note here that the term is not used by any Muslim group to define itself. Rather, it is used in a derogatory sense by critics of some Muslim groups that uphold a different, indeed opposed, understanding of Islam from theirs. Incidentally, not all these forms of Islam are associated with the particular vision of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab.

In the Indian context, broadly speaking, the term ‘Wahhabi’ is loosely used by a group of Muslims known as the Barelvis and other defendants of the cults of the shrines of the Sufi saints, to refer to two other groups who also claim to be Sunnis: the Deobandis and the Ahl-e Hadith (henceforth AH). Many Deobandis also refer to the AH as Wahhabis. It is thus important to clarify how both the Barelvis and the Deobandis respectively use the term and what they mean by it.

The Barelvis are a group among the Indian Sunnis who are defined by their association with the thought and teachings of the nineteenth century Ahmad Reza Khan of Bareilly, a town in north India. He upheld a certain reformed sort of Sufism while at the same time also defending many practices associated with the shrines of the Sufis, many of which were critiqued by other Muslim groups as biddat (‘innovation’ ) and shirk (polytheism) , and also as being of Hindu or Shia origin. He also defended certain popular practices such as the observation of the birth and death anniversaries of the Prophet and the Sufi saints, the belief in the intercessionary powers of the Prophet and the buried Sufi saints, and the belief that the Prophet was present in all places and that he had knowledge of the Unseen.

Along with the Barelvis, or followers of Ahmad Reza Khan, are many other Indian Sunni Muslims who also adhere to similar practices and beliefs although not identifying themselves as Barelvis. For both of these groups, who, together might account for a majority of the Indian Sunni Muslim population, the Sunni critics of their practices and beliefs are very loosely and erroneously branded as ‘Wahhabis’, be they Deobandis, AH or those who subscribe to the ideology of the Jamaat-e Islami, despite the fact that these three groups have serious differences with each other on theological grounds.

For many Indian Deobandis, it is the AH who are ‘Wahhabis’, owing to the latter’s opposition to even reformed sort of Sufism in line with the shariah that the Deobandis uphold and to the tradition of taqlid or ‘imitation’ of one of the four major schools of Sunni jurisprudence (in the case of the Deobandis it is the Hanafi school). What unites the Barelvi, popular Sufi and Deobandi definitions of the term ‘Wahhabi’ is the ‘Wahhabi’s’ total opposition to anything that is seen as ‘innovation’ , including Sufism and taqlid, coupled with a sternly literalist approach to the corpus of Sunni Hadith or traditions attributed to the Prophet.

The term ‘Ahl-e Hadith’ literally means ‘people of the Hadith’, signifying the claim of this group to be the sole Muslim group that strictly abides by the Prophet’s Sunnah or practice, as reflected in the Hadith tradition. AH writings often invoke what is said to be a Prophetic tradition that the Muslims would be divided into 73 sects, of which 72 would go to hell, and only one, the ‘saved sect’ ( firqa al-najiyya) would be saved. They claim to be that one sect, implying therefore, that all the other Muslim sects, whether Shia or Sunni, have gone astray from the Prophet’s path and hence would merit Divine punishment. In addition to the term Ahl-e Hadith, they refer to themselves, as do the Saudi ‘Wahhabis’, as Salafis, or those who follow the Salaf-e Saleh or the ‘pious predecessors’ and as Muwahhidun or ‘monotheists’ , implying, therefore, that the other Muslim groups are not among these.

Key Beliefs of the Ahl-e Hadith

In contrast to many Sufis, the AH’s understanding of monotheism borders on anthropomorphism, being based on a strictly literalist reading of the Quran, reflecting the group’s fierce opposition to tawil or allegorical interpretation. It regards the Sufi belief in the intercessionary powers of the Prophet and the Sufi saints (wasilah, zariya) as akin to polytheism, arguing that these figures were mere mortals who are no longer alive. In contrast, Sufis believe that the Prophets and the saints are still alive, although not physically present in the world, and that they can be approached to communicate God on one’s behalf.

3. MIDHAT PASHA REFORM MOVEMENT:

The son of a civil judge, he was born at Der Saadet (Constantinople) in 1822. His father, a declared partisan of reform, trained him for an administrative career, and at the age of twenty-two he was attached as secretary to Faik Effendi, whom he accompanied in Syria for three years.

On his return to Constantinople, Midhat was appointed chief director of confidential reports, and after a new financial mission in Syria was made second secretary of the grand council. His enemies, however, succeeded in ousting him from this post, and caused him to be entrusted with the apparently impossible task of settling the revolt and brigandage rampant in Rumelia.

His measures were drastic and their success startling so the government made him an official of the first ranks and restored him to his place in the grand council. In similar vigorous fashion he restored order in Bulgaria in 1857. In 1860 he was made vizier and pasha, and entrusted with the government of Nis, where his reforms were so beneficial that the sultan charged him, in conjunction with Fuad Pasha and Ali Pasha, with preparing the scheme for adapting them to the empire which was afterwards known as the law of the vilayets.

After further administrative work in his province, he was ordered to organize the council of state in 1866, and was then made governor of Baghdad, where his success was as decisive as at Nis, but attended with much greater difficulties. In 1871, the anti-reform influence of the grand vizier, Mahmud Nedim Pasha, seemed to Midhat a danger to the country, and in a personal interview he boldly stated his views to the sultan, who was so struck with their force and complete disinterestedness that he appointed Midhat grand vizier in place of Mahmoud. However, proving him too independent for the court, Midhat remained in power for only three months, and after a short governorship of Salonica he lived apart from affairs at Constantinople until 1875.

From this time forward, however, Midhat Pasha's career resolved itself into a series of strange and almost romantic adventures. While sympathizing with the ideas and aims of the Young Ottomans, he was anxious to restrain their impatience, but the sultan's obduracy led to a coalition between the grand vizier, the war minister and Midhat Pasha, which deposed him in May 1876. The sultan was murdered in the following month.

His nephew Murad V was in turn deposed in the following August and replaced by his brother, Abdul Hamid II. Midhat Pasha now became grand vizier, reforms were freely promised, and the Ottoman parliament was inaugurated with a great flourish. In the following February, however, Midhat was dismissed and banished for supposed complicity in the murder of Abdul Aziz [disambiguation needed ]. He then visited various European capitals, and remained for some time in London, where he carefully studied the procedure in the House of Commons.

Again recalled in 1878, he was appointed governor of Syria, and in August exchanged offices with the governor of Smyrna. But in the following May the sultan again ordered him to be arrested, and although he effected his escape and appealed to the powers, he shortly afterwards saw fit to surrender, demanding only a fair hearing. The trial was held in the garden of the sultan Abdul Hamid II's Yildiz Palace and took place over three days in June 1881, Midhat and the others were sentenced to death. The trial was, however, generally regarded as a mockery, and on the intercession of the British government the sentence was commuted to banishment.

The remaining three years of his life were consequently spent in exile at Taif in Arabia, where he died, probably as a result of violence, on 8 May 1884. To great ability, wide sympathies, and undoubted patriotism he added absolute honesty, that rare quality in a vizier, for he left office as poor as when he entered it. In 1953 his body was brought back to Turkey for burial in Istanbul.

Finally, Nazim Pasha embarked on furious campaigns against the Iraqi tribes which created a lot of dissension in Baghdad, particularly since he attempted to defeat the tribes in one fell swoop, strongly testing his unprepared troops.

The nationalism of the Young Turks, whose leader Enver Pasha gained virtual dictatorial power by a coup in 1913, antagonized the remaining minorities in the empire.

http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py?page=Midhat_Pasha&editintro=Template:Disambiguation_needed/editintro&client=Template:Dn

4. MAHDI MOVEMENT

Much has been said concerning Unity and indeed much will be said concerning it. The question is not one of philosophy or theory but praxis. Even so, this particular blog entry will explore Unity through various traditions, following the Quranic injunction to ‘remind, if the reminder should benefit;’ (87:9).

“ الذكر نفعت إن �ر ”فذك

Undoubtedly we are not at the moment Unified, for if we were, there would be peace. Muslims would not be oppressed nor would we be oppressors. A blind call for unity will not remedy the situation, nor even will a blind unity. Firstly a conspectus needs to be realized through an investigative parsing of who or what needs to unite and in which manner. Unification of all Arab states, or even Muslim countries, would not necessarily mean victory of peace. In fact if such unification were to occur it would most probably result in the opposite, for “A state is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also, and this lie creepeth from its mouth: ‘I, the state, am the people.” (Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, p45). Thus the unification must occur at grass-roots level, locally, but with international feeling.

Subsequent to this understanding of who must unify we need to identify how we must unify. This is paramount in this age of terrorism; for we cannot and should not unify ourselves against anything but rather unify ourselves from within. Any unification through the process of ‘othering’, that is, the conscious or unconscious alienation of one set of morals through the proselytizing of another, is doomed to failure. We must have methods, and with those methods aims, however the aims should be contained within the methods, and thus the two, through a marriage of form and content, mirror each other. Necessarily, methods of alienation cannot produce the result of unity. Any such unity is always doomed to failure for it is always threatened from within precisely because it uses an outside referent to stabilize itself. An unthreatened unity would comprise a unity of morals and purpose practiced for their own sake. Moreover, an unthreatened unity that unifies not only its own adherents but that which lies outside its immediate sphere would unify itself not through its own “language of good and evil” but rather through the language of good and evil of its neighbour, for "Every people speaketh its language of good and evil; this its neighbour understandeth not." (Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, p45)

The implications of such an effective unification of Muslims through Western cultural norms would indeed be far reaching and would be far better than customary methods of calling people to Islam.

After grasping who needs to unite and in which manner it is important to understand how. The Buddha once, at a time that mirrors ours in that a super power wished to subjugate all

that which differed from it, said 'I will teach you, O brothers, seven conditions of the welfare of a community. Listen well and attend, and I will speak.' He then spoke as follows: “So long, O brothers, as the brethren meet together in full and frequent assemblies--so long as they meet together in concord, and rise in concord, and carry out in concord the duties of the order--so long as the brethren shall establish nothing that has not been already prescribed, and abrogate nothing that has been already established, and act in accordance with the rules of the order as now laid down--so long as the brethren honor and esteem and revere and support the elders of experience and long standing, the fathers and leaders of the order, and hold it a point of duty to hearken to their words--so long as the brethren fall not under the influence of that craving which, springing up within them, would give rise to renewed existence --so long as the brethren delight in a life of solitude--so long as the brethren so train their minds that good and holy men shall come to them, and those who have come shall dwell at ease”.

Certainly not everyone can administer Islamic Law just as not everyone can or should administer modern Western secular law. It is however the duty of the layman to be open not closed, conservative in keeping to the liberal nature of the Quran and the Prophet’s methods, and tolerant and accepting of others. As to the question of who then should administer Islamic law, theologians that are firmly rooted in Islam with full and well rounded world views such as Tariq Ramadhan would be most suited to occupation.

The nature of Islamic law, manner of its revelation, and application is another topic within itself and so I will not delve further for the time being.

5. ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY:

A philosophical movement of the 18th century that emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms.

Philosophy was at the core of the eighteenth century movement known as the Scottish Enlightenment. The movement included major figures, such as Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid and Adam Ferguson, and also many others who produced notable works, such as Gershom Carmichael, George Turnbull, George Campbell, James Beattie, Alexander Gerard, Henry Home (Lord Kames) and Dugald Stewart. I discuss some of the leading ideas of these thinkers, though paying less attention than I otherwise would to Hume, Smith and Reid, who have separate Encyclopedia entries. Amongst the topics covered in this entry are aesthetics (particularly Hutcheson's), Moral philosophy (particularly Hutcheson's and Smith's), Turnbull's providential naturalism, Kames's doctrines on divine goodness and human freedom, Campbell's criticism of the Human account of miracles, the philosophy of rhetoric, Ferguson's criticism of the idea of a state of nature, and finally the concept of conjectural history, a concept especially associated with Dugald Stewart.

The major figures in Scottish eighteenth century philosophy were Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid and Adam Ferguson. Others who produced notable works included Gershom Carmichael, George Turnbull, George Campbell, James Beattie, Alexander Gerard, Henry Home (Lord Kames) and Dugald Stewart.

The 18th-century Enlightenment was the single most important intellectual development in human history; it made possible the comfortable, prosperous, stable, and relatively free Western civilization that we enjoy today.

Enlightenment thinkers believed in a single, knowable, absolute reality guided by rational natural laws. Individuals, said Enlightenment thinkers, have the faculty of reason, which enables them to accurately understand the absolute reality. Using reason, individuals can understand not only the factual data of reality but a rational moral system which can instruct them on how they ought to behave.

The Enlightenment cultivated the rights of every human being to his life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. Enlightenment thinkers insisted that no one, neither private criminals nor the government, ought to violate these rights. These rights are derived from nature, not from other people; hence the name natural rights. Natural rights cannot be taken away; they can only be violated, and their violation is the ultimate immorality.

The Enlightenment advanced man's liberty to speak his mind and publish his thoughts using his own property; it decried government censorship and the use force against free expression of ideas. The Enlightenment rebelled against religious bigotry and intolerance; it advocated every individual's freedom to pursue whatever non-coercive religion he saw fit or to refrain from religious pursuit’s altogether. The State should not control religion or morality; both should be left to the private domain.

Enlightenment thinkers advocated freedom of individual association and full-fledged property rights. This implied a conviction that individuals should be allowed to trade freely with one another and voluntarily produce goods, services, and ideas on a free market. The State should not regulate commerce or dictate its objectives; rather, laissez-faire capitalism is the only economic system consistent with individual natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. Laissez-faire capitalism, through Adam Smith's famous "invisible hand" of the marketplace, would produce far superior results to a government-managed economy.

The Enlightenment led to an era of shrinking government, expanding liberty, increased toleration, and immensely amplified commercial freedom. Creative entrepreneurs and thinkers benefited from the Enlightenment; they used their new liberties to invent new technologies and ideas, thereby initiating the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and 19th centuries is largely responsible for the unprecedented prosperity, peace, and opportunity we enjoy today.

Unfortunately, while the Enlightenment's material legacies remain with us today, today's mainstream culture has largely rejected the ideas which motivated the Enlightenment. If

we wish to continue to progress and enjoy lives proper to man, we need to save and revive the Enlightenment's principles.

6. PROTESTANT REFORMATION:

In 1517 a monk named Martin Luther from Wittenburg in Germany began to criticize the power and corruption of the Pope and the Catholic church. He attacked the Pope for pardoning people's sins in exchange for money. Luther thought that it was immoral for the Pope's agents (pardoners) to travel all over Europe selling these letters of indulgence.

Luther also criticised the Pope for not allowing the Bible to be translated into other languages. Luther argued that as the vast majority of people could not read Latin they had to rely on what the priest told them was in the Bible.

Luther was very angry that Pope Leo X was raising money in this way. He believed that it was wrong for people to be able to buy forgiveness for sins they had committed. Luther decided to write down his views on the subject. He then nailed the paper to the door of the church in Wittenberg.

Luther's views on the Church were not new. In the 14th century, John Wycliffe and his Lollard followers had said similar things in England. However, with the help of the English monarchy, the Lollard movement had been crushed by the Pope and the Catholic church.

Pope Leo X now ordered Luther to stop stirring up trouble. This attempt to keep Luther quiet had the opposite effect. Luther now started issuing statements about other issues. For example, at that time people believed that the Pope was infallible (incapable of error). However, Luther was convinced that Leo X was wrong to sell indulgences. Therefore, Luther argued, the Pope could not possibly be infallible.

If the Pope could be wrong about indulgences, Luther argued he could be wrong about other things. For hundreds of years popes had only allowed bibles to be printed in Latin or Greek. Luther pointed out that only a minority of people in Germany could read these languages. Therefore to find out what was in the Bible they had to rely on priests who could read and speak Latin or Greek. Luther, on the other hand, wanted people to read the Bible for themselves.

In 1521 orders were given for Luther to be arrested. However, Luther had many supporters in Germany and some of these people helped to save his life by hiding him in a castle. While Luther was there he translated the Bible into German. It was not long before copies of Luther's Bible were being read by people all over Germany.

Martin Luther was more successful than John Wycliffe in gaining support for reforming the Church. His supporters, because they were protesting against the way the Church was governed, became known as Protestants. Luther's ideas also spread to other countries.

Gradually large numbers of people living in England, the Netherlands (today called Holland and Belgium), Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries began to call themselves Lutherans or Protestants. Protestants were no longer willing to accept the authority of the Pope. They argued that people needed to read the Bible if they wanted to find out how God wanted them to behave.

Henry VIII initially disagreed with Luther's views. Henry feared that criticism of the Church might encourage people to criticise the monarchy. At the time, it was believed that Wycliffe's attacks on the Pope had been partly responsible for the Peasants' Revolt in 1381. In 1521 Henry wrote a book attacking Luther's views on the Church. The Pope was so pleased with Henry's loyalty that he gave him the title 'Defender of the Faith'.

Henry's opinions about the power of the Pope changed after he was denied permission to divorce Catherine of Aragon. In 1534, Henry made himself head of the Church in England in place of the Pope. Although Henry continued to persecute English Protestants, he was now also hostile to those who remained loyal to the Pope.

Henry VIII was particularly worried that he did not have the full support of the monks and nuns in England. In 1535 Henry began arresting monks for high treason. As a warning to others, five monks were publicly tortured before being beheaded. Later that year others were executed, together with several nuns.

In 1536 Henry gave permission for an English translation of the Bible to be published in England. He also ordered that a copy of this Bible should be placed in every church in his kingdom. Henry still considered himself to be a Catholic, but by taking this action, he began to move the Church in the direction of Protestantism.

7. SANUSI MOVEMENT:

The Senussi or Sanussi refers to a Muslim political-religious order in Libya and the Sudan region founded in Mecca in 1837 by the Grand Senussi, Sayyid Muhammad ibn Ali as-Senussi. Senussi was concerned with both the decline of Islamic thought and spirituality and the weakening of Muslim political integrity. He was influenced by the Salafi movement, to which he added teachings from various Sufi orders. From 1902 to 1913 the Senussi fought French expansion in the Sahara, and the Italian colonisation of Libya beginning in 1911. The Grand Senussi's grandson became King Idris of Libya in 1951. In 1969, King Idris I was overthrown by a military coup led by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. A third of the population in Libya continue to be affiliated with the Senussi.

The Senussi order has been historically closed to Europeans and outsiders, leading reports of their beliefs and practices to vary immensely. Though it is possible to gain some insight from the lives of the Senussi sheikhs further details are difficult to obtain.

Sayyid Muhammad ibn Ali as-Senussi (1787–1859), the founder of the order,was born in Algeria near Mostaganem and was named al-Senussi after a venerated Muslim teacher. He was a member of the Walad Sidi Abdalla tribe, and was a sharif tracing his descent from Fatimah, the daughter of Mohammed. He studied at a madrassa in Fez, then traveled in the Sahara preaching a purifying reform of the faith in Tunisia and Tripoli, gaining many adherents, and then moved to Cairo to study at Al-Azhar University. The pious scholar was forceful in his criticism of the Egyptian ulema for what he perceived as their timid compliance with the Ottoman authorities and their spiritual conservatism. He also argued that learned Muslims should not blindly follow the four classical schools of Islamic law but instead engage in ijtihad themselves. Not surprisingly, he was opposed by the ulema as unorthodox and they issued a fatwa against him.

Senussi went to Mecca, where he joined Ahmad Ibn Idris al-Fasi, the head of the Khadirites, a religious fraternity of Moroccan origin. On the death of Al-Fasi, Senussi became head of one of the two branches into which the Khadirites divided, and in 1835 he founded his first monastery or zawia, at Abu Kobeis near Mecca. While in Arabia, Senussi's connections with the Salafi movement caused him to be looked upon with suspicion by the ulema of Mecca and the Ottoman authorities. Finding the opposition in Mecca too powerful Senussi settled in Cyrenaica, Libya in 1843, where in the mountains near Sidi Rafaa' (Bayda) he built the Zawia Baida ("White Monastery"). There he was supported by the local tribes and the Sultan of Wadai and his connections extended across the Maghreb.

The Grand Senussi did not tolerate fanaticism and forbade the use of stimulants as well as voluntary poverty. Lodge members were to eat and dress within the limits of Islamic law and, instead of depending on charity, were required to earn their living through work. No aids to contemplation, such as the processions, gyrations, and mutilations employed by Sufi dervishes, were permitted. He accepted neither the wholly intuitive ways described by Sufi mystics nor the rationality of the orthodox ulema; rather, he attempted to achieve a middle path. The Bedouin tribes had shown no interest in the ecstatic practices of the Sufis that were gaining adherents in the towns, but they were attracted in great numbers to the Senussis. The relative austerity of the Senussi message was particularly suited to the character of the Cyrenaican Bedouins, whose way of life had not changed much in the centuries since the Arabs had first accepted the Prophet Mohammad's teachings.[1]

In 1855 Senussi moved farther from direct Ottoman surveillance to Jaghbub, a small oasis some 30 miles northwest of Siwa. He died in 1860, leaving two sons, Mahommed Sherif (1844–95) and Mohammed al-Mahdi, who succeeded him.

Although named Al Mahdi by his father, Mohammed never claimed to be the Mahdi (the Promised One), although he was regarded as such by some of his followers. When Muhammad Ahmad proclaimed himself al-Mahdi al-Muntazar or 'the Expected Saviour' in 1881 Mohammed al-Mahdi decided to have nothing to do with him. Although Muhammad Ahmed wrote twice asking him to become one of his four great khalifs, he received no reply. In 1890 Mahdists advancing from Darfur were stopped on the frontier of Wadai, the sultan Yusef proving firm in his adherence to the Senussi teachings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senussi#cite_note-locsanusi-0

The Madhhab of the founder of this movement is the Maliki Madhhab (school of Fiqh). But he was very flexible, as he was known to choose the truth wherever he found it. He was not fanatic to the Maliki Madhhab. Allah knows best.

8. IBN RUSHD

Abu'l Waleed Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Rushd, known as Averroes in the West, was born in 1128 A.D. in Cordova, where his father and grandfather had both been judges. His grandfather was well versed in Fiqh (Maliki School) and was also the Imam of the Jamia Mosque of Cordova. The young Ibn Rushd received his education in Cordova and lived a quiet life, devoting most of his time to learned-pursuits. He studied philosophy and law from Abu J'afar Haroon and from Ibn Baja; he also studied medicine.

Al-Hakam, the famous Umayyad Caliph of Spain, had constructed a magnificent library in Cordova, which housed 500,000 books, He himself had studied many of these and made brief marginal comments on them. This rich collection laid the foundation for intellectual study in Spain and provided the background for men like Ibn Rushd, who lived 2 centuries later.

Abu Yaqub, the Caliph of Morocco, called him to his capital and appointed him as his physician in place of Ibn Tufail. His son Yaqub al-Mansur retained him for some time but soon Ibn Rushd's views on theology and philosophy drew the Caliph's wrath. All his books, barring strictly scientific ones, were burnt and he was banished to Lucena. However, as a result of intervention of several leading scholars he was forgiven after about four years and recalled to Morocco in 1198; but he died towards the end of the same year.

Ibn Rushd made remarkable contributions. in philosophy, logic, medicine, music and jurisprudence. In medicine his wellknown book Kitab al-Kulyat fi al-Tibb was written before 1162 A.D Its Latin translation was known as 'Colliget'. In it, Ibn Rushd has thrown light on various aspects of medicine, including the diagnoses, cure and prevention of diseases. The book concentrates on specific areas in comparison of Ibn Sina's wider scope of al-Qanun, but contains several original observations of Ibn Rushd.

In philosophy, his most important work Tuhafut al-Tuhafut was written in response to al-Ghazali's work. Ibn Rushd was criticised by many Muslim scholars for this book, which, nevertheless, had a profound influence on European thought, at least until the beginning of modern philosophy and experimental science. His views on fate were that man is neither in full control of his destiny nor is it fully predetermined for him. He wrote three commenlaries on the works of Aristotle, as these were known then through Arabic translations. The shortest Jami may be considered as a summary of the subject. The intermediate was Talkhis and the longest was the Tafsir. These three commentaries would seem to correspond to different stages in the education of pupils; the short one was meant for the beginners, then the intermediate for the students familiar with the subject, and finally the longest one for advanced studies. The longest commentary was, in fact, an

original contribution as it was largely based on his analysis including interpretation of Qu'ranic concepts.

In the field of music, Ibn Rushd wrote a commentary on Aristotle's book De Anima. This book was translated into Latin by Mitchell the Scott.

In astronomy he wrote a treatise on the motion of the sphere, Kitab fi-Harakat al-Falak. He also summarised Almagest and divided it into two parts: description of the spheres, and movement of the spheres. This summary of the Almagest was translated from Arabic into Hebrew by Jacob Anatoli in 1231.

According to Ibn al-Abbar, Ibn Rushd's writings spread over 20,000 pages, the most famous of which deal with philosophy, medicine and jurisprudence. On medicine alone he wrote 20 books. Regarding jurisprudence, his book Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihayat- al-Muqtasid has been held by Ibn Jafar Thahabi as possibly the best book on the Maliki School of Fiqh. Ibn Rushd's writings were translated into various languages, including Latin, English, German and Hebrew. Most of his commentaries on philosophy are preserved in the Hebrew translations, or in Latin translations from the Hebrew, and a few in the original Arabic, generally in Hebrew script. This reveals his wider acceptance in the West in comparison to the East. The commentary on zoology is entirely lost. Ibn Rushd also wrote commentaries on Plato's Republic, Galen's treatise on fevers, al-Farabi's logic, etc. Eighty-seven of his books are still extant.

Ibn Rushd has been held as one of the greatest thinkers and scientists of the 12th century. According to Philip Hitti, Ibn Rushd influenced Western thought from the 12th to the 16th centuries. His books were included in the syllabi of Paris and other universities till the advent of modern experimental sciences.

western like the renaissance

Education