Mongol Trial

Mongol Trial 5

Today is the day! The first day of the trials where we are convicting the Mongols for their crimes! Shivesh did the opening statement and did a very good job. His opening statement was very moving, well done and showed that he was well-prepared. Nathan who did the opening statement for the defense sort of helped the prosecution. After the opening statements of both, the defense and prosecution, we moved on with calling witnesses to the stand for direct as well as cross examination. Dillon who was the Pope Innocent was first then I was. After us, Rachel was called to the stand and that was all for the first day. And hopefully tomorrow will be great for the prosecution!

Mongol Trial 6

Today is the second day of the trial. We had 3 witnesses from the prosecution that had to be called to the stand. Anjali was first then Tommy then Tori. The defense did not do so well; when Nathan was questioning the witness, he kept going in circles, he was asking irrelevant questions and eventually he ran out of time. After that, the witnesses were called to stand for direct and cross examinations. Michelle was the cross examiner and she did an amazing job! She showed sass and she should definitely be a lawyer in the future. Today was really good the prosecution side and we got the evidence that we were convicting them of. I’m looking forward to the closing statements because they are important to the trial. Ashay is going to do the closing statement from the prosecution side. I think the defense's closing statement will be interesting but they have no chance of winning this trial.

Mongol Trial

Mongol Trial Day 1

Today, on the first day, we figured out who would do what. After starting out with more than 2 lawyers, we made several changes and switches, and we now have 6 witnesses and 4 lawyers. I am the Abbasid caliph, Al-Mustasim. Today was productive, we got done what we had to and progress was made. We created our twitter and blog. I was then able to start my research. I found out information about Al-Mustasim. At home, I finished reading one-third of the chapter and took notes.

Mongol Trial Day 2

Today in class with the small amount of class time left, we basically clarified and worked on further for the trial. I completed my story about Al-Mustasim, the Abbasid caliph, and my story is pretty solid. Tonight, I read another third of the chapter and also thought about what questions the defense will ask.

Mongol Trial Day 3

Today in class we made a lot of progress. I, along with other witnesses continued working on our back stories and made helpful stories that the defense can't poke holes through. Also, the witnesses had a twitter war with the Mongol defense. I believe this trial will be intense because of the trash talks on twitter. The lawyers compiled questions for example, Maya, the direct examiner, met with the witnesses and talked to them about what she going to ask them particularly; the other lawyers were creating their opening and closing statements and the cross examiner was looking up information to find holes in the defense’s argument.

Mongol Trial Day 4

In class, we watched the documentary which took most of class time.  I talked to Maya, the direct examiner, about the questions that she will ask me. At home, I finished reading last part of the chapter and looked over some important points.

Pocket Map - Chapter 14

The Sufi a Philosopher Al-Ghalazi

On the Separation of Mathematics and Religion

1) This text fully illustrates many Islamic values, as it embraces knowledge as a positive thing but not in context with religion. In this respect this text voices the concerns that plague many Islamic theologians and the very people of the faith. It is applying logical thought to something that is thrives on faith, blind faith that leads to confusion towards many Islamic ideas. Al-Ghazzali does a great job of pointing this out in context with mathematicians that are used to the solidarity and tangibility of math that as led them to not believe in their faith anymore as they cannot find proof of a 'God' per se.

2) Al-Ghazzali seems to adamantly support the separation of  Mathematics and Religion. His main argument is that reliance on physical laws and proofs and them being applied to religion will only lead people to confusion and lead them astray. This excerpt opens with his views on mathematics which are that it has no connection to theology, it does not deter or encourage religion, and is solely depended on proofs and laws that once discovered cannot be refuted. To illustrate this he points out two possible outcomes that come about due to mathematics.  The first, is that a scholar that believes in the legitimacy of proofs in mathematics, and then expects this in religion, and does not find the answers, leads himself to believe  that there is no truth in religion since. Second, his believes that is a scholar intertwines both Mathematics and Religion will think that it is okay to deny one's religion as many before have done the same.

Deliverance From Error vs. Allegory of the Cave

Both of these texts are similar in a number of ways. Both emphasize that man must be guided to find truth. In the 'Allegory of the Cave', men are bound in a cave, left with a single, pin-hole view of the world. Plato also mentions the need for them to be guided outside of the cave and to see the light by the one who has seen the light (i.e. gained 'superior' knowledge). Al-Ghazzali point towards the same concept but uses the prophet Muhammad (PBUH)*. When the Prophet (PBUH), was asked about "dilation"(i.e. attaining faith/knowledge), he answered with the words of Allah, "in the Most High’s utterance: 'So he whom God wishes to guide aright, He dilates his breast for submission to Himself (i.e., to embrace Islam)' (6.125)". When asked how and what one knows that they have attained this 'dilation' he (PBUH) answered that “'It is a light which God casts into the heart.'" and this is described as the “'Withdrawal from the mansion of delusion and turning to the mansion of immortality.'”. The difference in the 'dark' of both works is in Plato's work it is the cave and in Al-Ghazzali work it is the house of delusion, but similar in that dark is referred to the one who have not seen/attained the light.. Another similarity is the doubt in physical senses. Plato is very explicitly says that one cannot trust their senses, mainly their sense of sight. Al-Ghazzali similarly talks about him doubting "sense-data". The most prominent difference in these works is that Al-Ghazzali through the words of the Prophet (PBUH) emphasizes the need to except let one to accept God. Plato does no such thing as he was a philosopher and preferred logical thought over theological.

*(peace be upon him- PBUH)

Byzantine Law Codes

1)  According to the prologue, what was the purpose of creating this code?

The purpose of creating this code was to take and simplify the complex law of the former Roman Empire. Also to get rid of the superfluous parts to make it easier to be used. 

2)  What does this text cite as the source of Roman law?

The text cites as the source of Roman law as being the law of nature, the law of nations as a whole, and from the civil law of Rome. 

3)  What, if anything, does this text teach us about Byzantine society?

The text teaches one that the Byzantine society was complex and strong. They were rational and wanted an institution of law to uphold the integrity of the empire, and understood advancements were necessary to make the former Law fit into their needs. It also teaches one that the empire was primarily Christian and they regarded God as an all-powerful being. They are faithful to them and their fate is in his hands.

SPICE Chart - Chapter 13

Decline of the Roman Empire - Response to the Theory

Our group's theory was catastrophic collapse. As the theory stated, there was not one sole reason for the fall of the Roman Empire but due to multiple reasons. Reasons include external pressure, lack of unity, economic collapse, internal system's problems led to the decline. I agree with this collapse theory because a great power such as Rome does not have one sole reason that led to its demise. The reasons seemed accurate when one considers the circumstances/events which occurred during that time period such as the Barrack Emperors, Gothic and Hunnic pressure. When looked through a historical and logical standpoint, I am convinced that reasons such as external pressure, internal system's problem, economic collapse caused the collapse of the Roman Empire.