A Brief History of Creation

September 24, 2009 | Filed Under Civil War | No Comments

What is the loop of Creation? How is there something from nothing?

In spite of the fact that it is impossible to prove that anything exists beyond one’s perception since any such proof would involve one’s perception (I observed it, I heard it, I thought about it, I calculated it, and etc.), science deals with a so-called objective reality “out there,” beyond one’s perception professing to describe Nature objectively (as if there was a Nature or reality external to one’s perception). The shocking impact of <i>Matrix</i> was precisely the valid possibility that what we believed to be reality was but our perception; however, this was presented through showing a real reality wherein the perceived reality was a computer simulation. Many who toy with the idea that perhaps, indeed, we are computer simulations, deviate towards questions, such as, who could create such software and what kind of hardware would be needed for such a feat. Although such questions assume that reality is our perception, they also axiomatically presuppose the existence of an objective deterministic world “out there” that nevertheless must be responsible for how we perceive our reality. This is a major mistake emphasizing technology and algorithms instead of trying to discover the nature of reality and the structure of creation. As will be shown in the following, the required paradigm shift from “perception is our reality fixed within an objective world,” to “perception is reality without the need of an objective world ‘out there,’” is provided by a dynamic logical structure. The Holophanic loop logic is responsible for a consistent and complete worldview that not only describes, but also creates whatever can be perceived or experienced.

Stating that it is impossible to prove the existence of anything beyond one’s perception is not saying there is nothing beyond perception, only that if there is anything, then whatever that is, is indefinite. It could be argued that the existence of physical laws, the universal perception that the apple falls to the ground is proof of an objective reality. However, this universal agreement is also our perception. It could be argued that if we cannot decide what to perceive, and everybody perceives the same physical reality, then there must be some lawfulness that dictates how we perceive and therefore, this lawfulness could be external to our perception. However, this lawfulness, as we shall see later on, is the precise lawfulness that creates perception, the process of definition, which is not external to perception (this process creates the perceived and the perceiver, which then gives meaning to this process – a loop – but about that, later). It could be argued, that hitting our knee on the table – whether we believe in the table or not – will hurt. The table is external to our body, but not to our perception. What then is perception? It is relating, a process of definition, defining and thereby rendering meaningful what has been perceived.

What then is this process of definition? It is creating borders within which one’s perception gains meaning. The word “definition” comes from the Latin <i>de finire</i>, meaning, making finite or limited. In Hebrew, definition is HAGDARA (הגדרה), meaning, to border. Any definition necessarily implies what the definition is not, or stated differently, to have meaning, whatever is defined explicitly includes the meaning by implicitly excluding everything else. Consequently, to define means to place the defined object within borders that by default create something beyond the borders of the definition. What is this something beyond the defined? The implicitly excluded everything else, or in other words, the indefinite. The paramount importance of incorporating the indefinite within a consistent logical structure cannot be overemphasized. The indefinite itself is a paradox, and incorporating it within the Holophanic logical structure engenders the loop of Creation where the dynamic structure of paradoxes is both the creative force of existence, and also the proof of the necessity of existence.

To better grasp the impetus of Creation, let’s look at the indefinite and paradoxes. What does “indefinite” mean? Anything as long as it is not specified (not defined); anything that appears both within and beyond the borders of the definition and thereby rendering the border superfluous, which means, no border, no definition. If nevertheless we would attempt to define the notion “indefinite,” then that’s a paradox because if we succeed, then it is defined, which contradicts its meaning – its indefiniteness – and the word “indefinite” means that it cannot be defined. This is an example of a paradox, that in essence means, if it is what it is, then it is not what it is, yet if it is not what it is, then it is what it is. A paradox is a creature that consists of a structure (how it is defined, the dynamic process on its way to stabilization) that contradicts its significance (what it is, the stabilized entity). What characterizes a paradox is the <i>motion</i> between its structure and significance, where the structure <i>implies</i> that its significance contradicts its structure, and vice versa.

Another example of a paradox would be “wholeness.” Wholeness (totality, infinite, boundless) can only be wholeness if we can find a way to define it so that it includes everything and there is nothing beyond it. However, if we define wholeness, then to have meaning, it must be bordered within the walls of the definition, which implies that there is something beyond this border, in which case it is not wholeness. Or in more formal language, wholeness is only wholeness if it is not wholeness, which is an inconsistency. If we are satisfied with that, then we have completed the definition of wholeness. However, if we try to include the <i>beyond</i> created by our earlier definition within the borders of our next attempt at defining wholeness, then we gain a new definition of wholeness, which by the sheer structure of the process of defining creates a new <i>beyond</i>. In this case, the process of defining wholeness will be consistent but incomplete, and wholeness will remain indefinite.

Contemplating the paradox of Creation, the ancient Egyptian myth of Creation springs to mind, the myth of the self-creating god, Amun (or Amon). Amun masturbated and swallowed his semen, after which he spit it out in the form of a ball, thereby impregnating his mother, the sky. And only then, was he born. Thus Amun was his own father. Those pious who discovered the illustrated version of this myth in Karnak covered up the erect phallus of Amun, and with it, this story of Creation was laid into obscurity. The Holophanic model of Creation could regard this Egyptian myth as Amun <i>retromorphously</i> creating himself. I have coined the word <i>retromorphous</i> to mean, defining in retrospect, turning non-being into the potential of whatever the observation is made from, or in other words, creating the past from the present, creating the source from its outcome, which is the basis of complexity in the context of the loop logic. That is, only after Amun was born can he give meaning to his mother, the potential from which he emanated and to the process that created him (as represented by masturbation and incest) whereby he was born. Of course, neither the sky nor the masturbating Amun have meaning until Creation takes place <i>de facto</i> and Amun emerges. I find this an enticing illustration of the basic paradox of existence.

So how can there be something from nothing? What is “nothing?” Nothing is what didn’t turn into the potential of something. If there was something from nothing, then that nothing would have turned into the potential of something, because when we ask, how is there something from nothing, we ask this question from something, when something already exists. If we take a deeper look at “nothing,” we’ll discover that “nothing” is a paradox. Any definition is something, so if we defined “nothing,” then it would become something, which contradicts its essence of being “nothing.” Another way of looking at “nothing” would be by means of it being something that is meaningless. That is, “nothing” could be something that does not relate and that no thing or no one relates to. That is, if there was something totally alone in the universe, then that would be nothing, but it would be meaningless. If such existed, its existence would be external to our perception, and as such, this “nothing” would be indefinite.

We said that the indefinite could be anything, as long as it is not specified (not defined). However, if we nevertheless tried to define “nothing” (the indefinite), what would we get then? Since “nothing” is non-definable, it is transparent as the object of our inquiry. So when we attempt to define it, all we have is what we put into it, which is the process of definition. “Nothing” stayed nothing, we didn’t define it, only made the process of definition explicit. “Nothing” gains meaning when we fail to define it; but having tried, we are left with a bonus, a something, which is our process of defining “nothing.” Creation of something from nothing is not a function of defining something, but a function of attempting to define “nothing.” And then, if that process of definition – which already is an existence – looks back at its origins, if this process of defining investigates into its own genesis, then what does it see? It sees itself. It sees the process of definition – self-reference.

If there is nothing external to perception, then this process of definition is the overall wholeness, the creator of meaning when it can relate to itself. However, to have meaning, the process of definition has to be defined; this definition would be a self-referential quasi-infinite and continuous process of establishing borders that create the indefinite beyond that establishes borders creating the indefinite beyond that establishes borders… which means, wholeness would continuously and forever fail to define itself while succeeding to define something – anything but itself.

Of course, both the totally defined and the totally indefinite are idealized notions that would be inconsistent with the Holophanic loop logic, nor can they be found in nature. The totally indefinite would be the total meaningless nothing, the kind of non-being that cannot be fathomed because if we would think about it, it would already be something. On the other hand, there can be no total definition either. I have used the term <i>uncertainty of sameness</i> to describe the logical impossibility of total definition. A defined entity can be said to have reached <i>sameness</i> — it is the same as itself — which means that it is, it exists as something definite, no matter which parameters defined it. However, no sooner does our object achieve sameness than the uncertainty of sameness raises its ugly head. Could it have been defined differently? Yes, of course. Could it have additional parameters? Yes, of course. Could it have been defined more precisely? Yes, of course. This uncertainty of sameness is the indefinite included in the definition, which is the result of including the tools of definition in the definition. Since <i>‘a’</i> can only be defined as <i>‘a’</i> with meaning if it implies <i>‘not-a’</i> (the indefinite beyond the borders of the definition), and since <i>‘a’</i> can only have meaning as <i>‘a’</i> because it is different from everything else (the everything else is the indefinite beyond the borders, which actually gives meaning to <i>‘a’</i>), the meaning of <i>‘a’</i> depends on <i>‘not-a.’</i>

When the meaning of something depends on the indefinite, on what our defined object is not, then this indefinite is necessarily included in the process of definition. This logical implication that perception of meaning is only possible if and only if the indefinite is included within the perception is the reason why the 19th century dream of a consistent and complete axiomatic system with only well defined (explicit) empty signs had to fail (see more about that in my article, <i>The Loop Logic</i>). In spite of the fact that logic is the fundament of algorithms and computer science, it had neither the aspiration nor the ability to be connected to the real world precisely because its propositions were so anemic regarding meaning. In the effort to exclude any hint of the indefinite, logical inference was confined to a binary type of world of true and false and lacking any correlation with life and experiencing. However, including the indefinite in the process of definition not only makes the loop logic the fundament of existence, but determines the necessity of existence. With the birth of Holophany, Heidegger’s question, <i>“Why is there anything at all, rather than nothing?”</i> becomes irrelevant. When existence is relations, and relating is the act of perceiving, and perceiving is the process of definition, then existence is the overall lawfulness, the isomorphous lawfulness of the process of definition – the loop of Creation. What is being perceived, what is being stabilized, which significance is brought to the foreground from the amorphous background of the indefinite, depends on the non-linear rules of complex interactions. Thus the loop logic emphasizes the creation of <i>essents</i> rather than their interactions.

Is there a lawfulness responsible for any and every existence? An electron and a dog are very different creatures; so what invisible lawfulness is responsible for the existence of both? What kind of lawfulness would fulfill such demands? The answer is, isomorphism — the same logical inner structure in entirely different representations. Whether an electron, a dog or the weather, each could be a different realization of the same inner logical structure. Creation of anything is the creation of meaning, which is an act of definition. The act of definition attempting to define itself is consciousness. So consciousness, or the soul if you wish, is not some invisible copy of our body carrying our identity, but the lawfulness of Creation expressed as our individual qualitative essence. Of course, it has been endlessly stated that we are God, that we are parts of God, and similar phrases. This is true, but true in the sense that God is the lawfulness that unfolds Creation, and this lawfulness is inherent in all creation including the creatures therein. It could be argued, that a soul, a person is more than mere definitions and intellect. If this logic is the logic of anything and everything, then it should be able to delineate the logical structure of experience as well. Indeed.

Anything that has meaning has to be defined, which places it somewhere on the scale between the continuous and the discrete, between the indefinite and the definite. The indefinite, continuous, infinite tends in the direction of the meaningless, whereas the meaningful is at best imprecise. Experience is the process of attempting to define the indefinite. When we try to capture an experience in a description, we are actually defining our attempt at defining the indefinite. The experience is continuous whereas its description, the definition is discrete. Just as we can never define wholeness, we can never define experience. Any description, any definition, is by nature discrete, whereas the net experience is continuous. So when we have an experience or perception and we become aware of having that experience, then we give it meaning by defining what it is. By doing this we create a discrete replica of the experience, yet the experience remains continuous and non-definable, non-discretizable. Experience is connected to learning. The person encounters something new. How do we know that something is new? Because it is inconsistent with our system. So when we interact with it, we have to integrate it, to assimilate it into our system. If we met something that was not new to the system, then our system would recognize it as part of itself. When that recognition does not occur, the system is interacting with something new. That is the impact. The system adjusts to include the new – that is the change. One’s selfhood is the path of changes following one’s experiences.

Our <i>knowledge</i> of the experience – whatever it might be that we experience – makes it exist for us. We could say, one only experiences when one is aware of experiencing. How do we know that we are aware of experiencing something? By experiencing it, we experience the awareness of experiencing. In this sense, experience and awareness of the experience, experiencing the awareness of the experience, being aware of experiencing the awareness of the experience, etc. is an infinitely continuous chain, which is what defines what experience is (not the interpretation of a specific experience, but experience in its general sense). <i>And that’s the definition of experience: an infinite loop of the process of becoming aware.</i>

When “nothing” is the limit of both the totally indefinite and the totally defined, then that’s like a circle of going from something to nothing to something to nothing, etc. The ‘going’ here means perception. “Nothing” is only a notion that has meaning if it has been perceived, in fact, a paradox. If it really is “nothing,” then it cannot be defined, and hence, it has no meaning. Yet if I relate to it, then it is something. So whenever I relate to “nothing,” whenever I say, Creation of something from nothing, that “nothing” has meaning for me, and hence, it is significance — it is something just like any other something. That is, the structure of “nothing” is the same structure as that of something. Essentially, something from nothing is <i>formation</i>, not Creation, since nothing is also something. Then what is Creation? Creation is rather the creation of nothing from something, because Creation is the process of definition, and when we define, we create the indefinite beyond the definition, which at its limit is nothing, and only then can we have something from nothing… Oh yes, the loop. A true loop is only such if it contains its own source. If nothing can be proven to exist external to perception, then logic must be a loop, and existence is a logical necessity inferred by the loop.

Including the indefinite in the process of definition has far reaching consequences. It means that the tools of the definition are necessarily included in the definition. It means that meaning can only occur when there is both definition and also experience. It means that consciousness (whether it succeeds to define or not) <i>must</i> be part of science or any so-called objective endeavor. It means that any and all perception includes experience. The interaction with the indefinite, the experience, is what gives meaning to the defined. Perception, meaningful definition, can only occur in a highly flexible complex system that can learn and change. That’s the difference between us and an electron, which only has fixed relations, and consequently, limited interactions. An electron always succeeds in defining, or it would be more correct to say, it can only interact with what it succeeds in defining. If it encounters the indefinite, it assumes a state of superposition.

Where is God in the loop of Creation? If we wanted to define God, the totality, we could not define God, because by the act of definition we would create the beyond, what is beyond God, which contradicts God’s totality. Therefore, no definition of God would do justice to God, and every such definition would truncate God’s wholeness. If God is indefinable, then God is indefinite. If God is indefinite, then I create God by the implication of the act of definition – any definition, because every definition creates the beyond, the indefinite beyond the borders of the definition. In that sense, this is consistent with the statement that I create God by my perception (definition). This does not say that I perceive God, but that my perception implies the existence of the indefinite (God). This means that if I perceive a dog, this perception implies the existence of God. If I perceive that I perceive, then that implies the existence of God. If I perceive dust, a table, an idea, whatever, then that implies the existence of God. If I experience, then that implies the existence of God. That’s because any existence implies the existence of God. And that’s because any existence is such if it relates or is related to, if it has meaning, if even partially it has been defined, which means, its mere definition implies the indefinite beyond the borders of the definition, it implies God, the indefinable. So one cannot directly perceive God (perhaps that is why it was stated in the Bible that no one could see God’s face and live = exist – “no man shall see me and live…” – Exodus 33: 20), but only know about God by implication, which means, the implication of the indefinite – God – is what attributes meaning to any existence.

http://www.moneybizhome.com/education

In Bible versus Quran: When King David called upon Jehovah?

September 23, 2009 | Filed Under Civil War | No Comments

The Wind in Bible versus Quran (1)

This is the first article of the series:” The Wind in Bible versus Quran”.

The Bible says that the Lord God has mouth, nostrils, feet and He was seen flying on the wings of the wind. The Noble Quran says that Naught is as Allah’s likeness in attributes.  Any form, picture, thoughts that you put the Almighty Creator in it is absolutely wrong.

===============================

The Wind in the Bible (1)

In 2 Samuel 22:7-17, Kind David says:

In my distress I called to the LORD; I called out to my God. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry came to his ears. “The earth trembled and quaked, the foundations of the heavens shook; they trembled because he was angry. Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it.  He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind.  He made darkness his canopy around him— the dark rain clouds of the sky. Out of the brightness of his presence bolts of lightning blazed forth.  The LORD thundered from heaven; the voice of the Most High resounded.  He shot arrows and scattered the enemies, bolts of lightning and routed them.  The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils.  “He reached down from on high and took hold of me; he drew me out of deep waters.

—————————-

Herein, there are some very important points:

1) The Bible describes the lord God, the Almighty Creator as He has mouth, nostrils, feet and He was seen flying on the wings of the wind.

2) The Bible describes the lord God, the Almighty Creator as a body which descends

3) The thunder is the voice of the lord God, the Almighty Creator.

4) The Lord God did and performed many movements and acts to save David.

5) The speed of the Lord God was that of the wind

6) The wind has wings!

—————————-

All of these points are ABSOLUTELY denied in the Noble Quran because:

1) The Noble Quran says that Naught is as Allah’s likeness in attributes.  Any form, picture, thoughts that you put the Almighty Creator in it is absolutely wrong.

2) The Almighty Creator is not a body

3) The thunder is not the voice of the Almighty Creator.

4) When the Almighty Creator decides upon a matter, when He wants to do anything, He only says to it ‘Be!’ and it is.  Hence, He could save David in fraction of a second if He willed.

5) The speed of the Lord God was that of the wind; for instance, does not He know the speed of the light?  However, Naught is as Allah’s likeness in attributes. 

6) The wind has no wings!

7) The Great Prophet King David can not say that about the Almighty Creator simply because he knows better who Allah is.

—————————-

2 Samuel 22:7-17 in three different versions of the Bible:

King James Version

7In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried to my God: and he did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter into his ears.

8Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth.

9There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.

10He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet.

11And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind.

12And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies.

13Through the brightness before him were coals of fire kindled.

14The LORD thundered from heaven, and the most High uttered his voice.

15And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; lightning, and discomfited them.

16And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

17He sent from above, he took me; he drew me out of many waters;

Young’s Literal Translation

7In mine adversity I call Jehovah, And unto my God I call, And He heareth from His temple my voice, And my cry [is] in His ears,

8And shake and tremble doth the earth, Foundations of the heavens are troubled, And are shaken, for He hath wrath!

9Gone up hath smoke by His nostrils. And fire from His mouth devoureth, Brands have been kindled by it.

10And He inclineth heaven, and cometh down, And thick darkness [is] under His feet.

11And He rideth on a cherub, and doth fly, And is seen on the wings of the wind.

12And He setteth darkness Round about Him — tabernacles, Darkness of waters — thick clouds of the skies.

13From the brightness before Him Were brands of fire kindled!

14Thunder from the heavens doth Jehovah, And the Most High giveth forth His voice.

15And He sendeth forth arrows, And scattereth them; Lightning, and troubleth them;

16And seen are the streams of the sea, Revealed are foundations of the world, By the rebuke of Jehovah, From the breath of the spirit of His anger.

17He sendeth from above — He taketh me, He draweth me out of many waters.

New International Version

7 In my distress I called to the LORD; I called out to my God. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry came to his ears.

8 “The earth trembled and quaked, the foundations of the heavens shook; they trembled because he was angry.

9 Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it.

10 He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet.

11 He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind.

12 He made darkness his canopy around him— the dark rain clouds of the sky.

13 Out of the brightness of his presence bolts of lightning blazed forth.

14 The LORD thundered from heaven; the voice of the Most High resounded.

15 He shot arrows and scattered the enemies, bolts of lightning and routed them.

16 The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare  at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils.

17 “He reached down from on high and took hold of me; he drew me out of deep waters.

===============================

The Wind in the Noble Quran (1)

In this article, the following four points will be discussed:

1) The Wind and the similitude of the righteous works of the disbelievers

2) The Wind and the likeness of the disbelievers who are Anti-Islam

3) What if Allah wants to do anything?

4) The Golden verse (faith-wise) of the Quran that describes the Almighty Creator

—————————-

1) The Wind and the similitude of the righteous works of the disbelievers

Verse 14: 18 says:

QARIB: as for the likeness of those who disbelieve in their lord, their works are like ashes which a strong wind scatters on a stormy day; they are powerless over that they have earned; that is the far error.

SHAKIR: the parable of those who disbelieve in their lord: their actions are like ashes on which the wind blows hard on a stormy day; they shall not have power over any thing out of what they have earned; this is the great error

PICKTHAL: a similitude of those who disbelieve in their lord: their works are as ashes which the wind bloweth hard upon a stormy day. they have no control of aught that they have earned. that is the extreme failure.

YUSUFALI: the parable of those who reject their lord is that their works are as ashes, on which the wind blows furiously on a tempestuous day: no power have they over aught that they have earned: that is the straying far, far (from the goal).

The meanings of the verse:

In this verse, the Quran gives a similitude, the likeness, the description, of the righteous works of those who disbelieve in their Lord such as kindness [to kin] or an act of charity in the way that no benefit can be derived from them.

Allah says: the works of those who disbelieve in their Lord are as ashes which the wind blows hard upon a stormy day, one in which the winds blow violently, making them as scattered dust, over which none can have power. They have no control of aught that they have earned.

Allah says: they will not find the reward of their good works which were performed in their state of disbelief, just as one will not find ashes when the wind blows hard on it.  The disbelievers, have no power over anything that they have earned, [anything] that they had done in [their] life on earth, in other words, they shall find no reward for it, since this was never a precondition. That is extreme error, [extreme] perdition!

That is the extreme failure; the error which is far remote from the Truth or guidance.

—————————-

2) The Wind and the likeness of the disbelievers who are Anti-Islam

Verse 3: 117 says:

QARIB: the wealth they spend in this worldly life is like a freezing wind that smites the harvest of a people who have wronged themselves and destroys it. Allah has not wronged them, but they wronged themselves.

SHAKIR: the likeness of what they spend in the life of this world is as the likeness of wind in which is intense cold (that) smites the seed produce of a people who haw done injustice to their souls and destroys it; and Allah is not unjust to them, but they are unjust to themselves

PICKTHAL: the likeness of that which they spend in this life of the world is as the likeness of a biting, icy wind which smiteth the harvest of a people who have wronged themselves, and devastateth it. Allah wronged them not, but they do wrong themselves.

YUSUFALI: what they spend in the life of this (material) world may be likened to a wind which brings a nipping frost: it strikes and destroys the harvest of men who have wronged their own souls: it is not Allah that hath wronged them, but they wrong themselves.

The meanings of the verse:

The likeness, the description, of what they, the disbelievers, expend in the life of this world, in the way of enmity towards the Prophet Muhammad or in the way of voluntary almsgiving or the like, is as the likeness of a wind wherein is a blast, of extreme hot or cold, that smote the tillage, the crops, of a people who have wronged themselves, through unbelief and disobedience, and destroyed it, so that they could not profit from it; so it is with what they expend, it perishes and they profit nothing from it. Also, they have wronged themselves by not giving what is due to Allah from it, (and devastated it) ruined it; likewise, idolatry destroys one’s spending just as wind destroys the harvest.

Allah did not wrong them, when they lost what they expended, but they wronged themselves, through unbelief, which necessitated this loss.

In other words, Allah did not wrong them by thwarting the benefit of their harvest and spending, but they did wrong themselves through disbelief and withholding what is due to Allah from the harvest.

—————————-

3) What if Allah wants to do anything?

Verse 36: 82 says:

QARIB: when he wills a thing, his command is to say to it ‘be’, and it is!

SHAKIR: his command, when he intends anything, is only to say to it: be, so it is

PICKTHAL: but his command, when he intendeth a thing, is only that he saith unto it: be! and it is.

YUSUFALI: verily, when he intends a thing, his command is, “be”, and it is!

The meanings of the verse:

His command, His affair, when He wills a thing, that is, [when He will] to create something, or to do anything is just to say to it ‘Be’, and it is.

Also, Verse 40: 68 says

QARIB: it is he who gives life and makes to die, and when he decrees a thing, he says to it: ‘be and it is!

SHAKIR: he it is who gives life and brings death, so when he decrees an affair, he only says to it: be, and it is

PICKTHAL: he it is who quickeneth and giveth death. when he ordaineth a thing, he saith unto it only: be! and it is.

YUSUFALI: it is he who gives life and death; and when he decides upon an affair, he says to it, “be”, and it is.

The meanings of the verse:

Allah is He Who gives life and brings death; No one else can do that. So when He decides upon a matter, [when] He wants to bring something into existence, He only says to it ‘Be!’ and it is.  In other words, it comes into existence after He has willed it, that which is signified by the said words.

—————————-

4) The Golden verse (faith-wise) of the Quran that describes the Almighty Creator

Verse42: 11 says

QARIB: the originator of the heavens and the earth, he has given you from yourselves, pairs, and also pairs of cattle, thereby multiplying you. there is nothing like him. he is the hearer, the seer.

SHAKIR: the originator of the heavens and the earth; he made mates for you from among yourselves, and mates of the cattle too, multiplying you thereby; nothing like a likeness of him; and he is the hearing, the seeing

PICKTHAL: the creator of the heavens and the earth. he hath made for you pairs of yourselves, and of the cattle also pairs, whereby he multiplieth you. naught is as his likeness; and he is the hearer, the seer.

YUSUFALI: (he is) the creator of the heavens and the earth: he has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does he multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto him, and he is the one that hears and sees (all things).

The meanings of the verse:

He (Allah) is the Originator of the heavens and the earth, the One Who created them [without precedent]. He has made for you, from your own selves, pairs, when He created Eve from Adam’s rib, and [also] pairs, males and females, of the cattle and whereby He multiplies you through marriage. There is nothing like Him; there is no likeness of Him, exalted be He). He is the Hearer, of what you say, the Seer, of your works.  Naught is as His likeness in attributes, knowledge, power and providence etc.

The basic point of faith is that Naught is as your Almighty creator.

Since man is a creature which has Spirit that gives him like; and since Naught is as the likeness of your Creator, then the Almighty Creator has NO SPIRIT.

Hence, the Almighty Creator is not a body or material like us.  Any form, picture or thoughts that you put the Almighty Creator in it is absolutely wrong.

According to the Islamic Rule of Faith, if any one put the Almighty Creator in any form, picture or thoughts, he or she is Disbeliever and has No faith; and he will end up in the Hereafter as a dweller of the Eternal Fire.

This is in spite of what name(s) you are giving to your Almighty Creator e.g. Allah, Lord, God, Jehovah etc.

On the other hand, the vice versa is absolutely True!

========================

Back to my question to the smart and interested reader:

Is the Quran quoted from the Bible?

Abraham Lincoln: The 16th President of the United States

September 22, 2009 | Filed Under Civil War | No Comments

Taking an Abraham Lincoln quiz is essentially taking a quiz in the history of the United States, as he stands as one of the most important presidents in the history of the nation. Although no president has left the country untouched by his own politics and beliefs, Lincoln went further than most in creating the changes that he believed in and, even though his legacy was already assured by his actions, his legend was assured by the manner of his death.

Abraham Lincoln trivia usually starts with the civil war, as it was his leadership that allowed the country to emerge united through the crisis which had torn it in two.  It is also going to touch on some of his famous speeches. Although earlier presidents had also been orators of a sort, it was Lincoln who among all others of the time truly became known for the speeches that he made. Although the most famous of those speeches is easily the Gettysburg Address, he had mentioned to others that his favorite among all of his speeches was his second inaugural address.

The most lasting effects beyond the victories of the civil war that were achieved by Lincoln involve both the Emancipation Proclamation, and the freeing of the slaves. The industry of the southern part of the country had been build upon the backs of slaves, and by freeing them, Lincoln set events into motion which would allow for the first steps to be taken along the long road to equality, a road that has surely led to the recent election of President Obama, and event that never could have taken place without the leadership of President Lincoln in his own times, a clear reason why any Abraham Lincoln quiz would include matters regarding the emancipation.

Finally, an Abraham Lincoln trivia point that many are interested in but most are sad to reflect upon was on this great president’s assassination. He had dodged assassins throughout most of his presidency, and on April 14th, 1865 he was assassinated at Ford’s Theatre while attending a play. He was killed by the actor, John Wilkes Booth, who was working with the Confederates against Lincoln. Booth escaped after the assassination and remained in hiding for twelve days until he was caught and shot dead in the attempt to capture him. In fitting fashion, instead of solving the problems of the confederates, the death of Lincoln helped cement the rest of the country more firmly around his legacy; acknowledging him as the hero and the martyr who had saved their country.

The story of Abraham and his disbeliever guest

September 21, 2009 | Filed Under Civil War | No Comments

In this article, the following six points will be discussed:

1) The three categories of the Prophet Muhammad’s speeches

2) An example of Hadith Qudsi that gives you an idea about Allah’s Mercy

3) The verse of the Noble Quran that supports this Hadith Qudsi

4) The difference of Allah’s Mercy and man’s mercy

5) Allah has decreed for Himself mercy as a bounty from Him

6) The Story of Abraham and his disbeliever guest when Allah blamed Him

————————————————————————————————

1) The three categories of the Prophet Muhammad’s speeches:

It should be emphasized that the speeches said by the Prophet Muhammad have three categories; they are: 1) The Noble Quran, 2) Hadith Qudsi or Sacred Hadith and 3) Prophetic Hadith.

The Noble Quran is Allah’s word which is revealed unto the Prophet Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel.

Hadith Qudsi is the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad as revealed to him by Allah.  Hadith Qudsi (or Sacred Hadith) is so named because, unlike the majority of Hadith which are Prophetic Hadith, its authority is traced back not to the Prophet Muhammad but to the Almighty Creator.

The Prophetic Hadith is the saying of the Prophet Muhammad that he has said throughout his life and its authority is traced back to him.

————————————————————————————————

2) Herein, an example of Hadith Qudsi that gives an idea about Allah’s Mercy.

In this Hadith Qudsi Allah says:

“O son of Adam, as long as you call upon Me and put your hope in Me, I have forgiven you for what you have done and I do not mind.

O son of Adam, if your sins were to reach the clouds of the sky and then you would seek My forgiveness, I would forgive you.

O son of Adam, if you were to come to Me with sins that are close to filling the earth and then you would meet Me without ascribing any partners with Me, I would certainly bring to you forgiveness close to filling it.”

In this Hadith Qudsi, Allah gives hope to mankind more than any other narration.

It displays the feature and excellence of Allah’s mercy.

Indeed, Allah is the Most Compassionate, and the Most Merciful. 

In this Hadith Qudsi, Allah tells man of the greatness of His forgiveness and mercy so that no one would despair due to the amount of sins he may have committed.

Allah catches the attention of mankind by calling out, O son of Adam!

This is a call to every human being.

Why did not Allah say, O mankind or O People?

The significance of this specific call is because Adam was the first human being, who committed the first sin.

Adam was an example to all humans of the consequences of sin and how to turn to Allah for forgiveness of ones sins.

This gives hope that even after committing a violation, ones sins can be forgiven if one repents to Allah sincerely the same way that the father of mankind sinned, repented, and was forgiven by Allah.

This Hadith teaches us the importance of realizing Allah’s mercy, having faith and hope in Him especially when calling to Allah alone for forgiveness, and the importance of repentance in the life and faith of a believer.

This Hadith Qudsi is supported by the following verse of the Holy Quran.

————————————————————————————————

3) The Noble Quran’s verse that supports this Hadith Qudsi

Verse 39:53 says:

QARIB: say: ‘O my worshipers, who have sinned excessively against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of Allah; surely, Allah forgives all sins. He is the Forgiver, the Most Merciful.

SHAKIR: say: O my servants! Who have acted extravagantly against their own souls, do not despair of the mercy of Allah; surely Allah forgives the faults altogether; surely he is the Forgiving the Merciful

PICKTHAL: say: o my slaves who have been prodigal to their own hurt! Despair not of the mercy of Allah, who forgiveth all sins. lo! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful.

YUSUFALI: say: “o my servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for he is oft-forgiving, Most merciful.

The meaning of the verse:

Say O Muhammad

O my servants who have been prodigal to their own hurt through disbelief, idolatry, adultery, murder etc.

Do not despair of Allah’s mercy

Do not despair of Allah’s forgiveness,

Allah forgives all sins.

Lo! He is the Forgiving; He forgives those who repent of disbelief and believe in Allah.

Allah is the Most Merciful towards those who die repentant.

It is said that this verse is the most far reaching in conveying the compassion shown by Allah, Exalted is He, to His servants; because, in accordance with His knowledge, He does not deprive them of that which He bestows on others, rather He showers mercy upon them to the point that He admits them to the very quintessence of [His] kindness, by virtue of [His] eternal remembrance of them.

————————————————————————————————

4) What is the difference between Allah’s Mercy and man’s mercy?

Verse 17:100 says:

QARIB: say: ‘if you possessed the treasuries of my lord’s mercy, you would hold them back for fear of spending and mankind is ever grudging!

SHAKIR: say: if you control the treasures of the mercy of my lord, then you would withhold (them) from fear of spending, and man is niggardly

PICKTHAL: say (unto them): if ye possessed the treasures of the mercy of my lord, ye would surely hold them back for fear of spending, for man was ever grudging.

YUSUFALI: say: “if ye had control of the treasures of the mercy of my lord, behold, ye would keep them back, for fear of spending them: for man is (every) niggardly!”

The meaning of the verse:

Say, to them O Muhammad:

‘If you possessed the treasuries of the mercy of my Lord, of provision and rain,

if you possessed the keys to the stores of the provision of my Lord, you would surely withhold them, you would stint, for fear of spending, fearing that they would be depleted if one spent from them and that you would then become impoverished; and man is ever niggardly’.

In other words, you would surely hold them back for fear of spending for fear of becoming poor, for man i.e. the disbelieving man (was ever grudging) parsimonious, stingy and tight-fisted.

————————————————————————————————

5) Allah has decreed for Himself mercy as a bounty from Him

Verse 6:12 says:

QARIB: say: ‘to whom belongs that which is in the heavens and the earth?’ say: ‘to Allah. he has written for himself mercy, and will gather you on the day of resurrection in which there is no doubt. those who have lost their souls, they do not believe. ‘

SHAKIR: say: to whom belongs what is in the heavens and the earth? say: to Allah; he has ordained mercy on himself; most certainly he will gather you on the resurrection day– there is no doubt about it. (as for) those who have lost their souls, they will not believe

PICKTHAL: say: unto whom belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth? say: unto Allah. he hath prescribed for himself mercy, that he may bring you all together to the day of resurrection whereof there is no doubt. those who ruin their souls will not believe.

YUSUFALI: say: “to whom belongeth all that is in the heavens and on earth?” say: “to Allah. he hath inscribed for himself (the rule of) mercy. that he will gather you together for the day of judgment, there is no doubt whatever. it is they who have lost their own souls, that will not believe.

The meaning of the verse:

Say O Muhammad:

‘To whom belongs what is in the heavens and in the earth?’

Say: ‘unto Allah belongs the creation of the heavens and the earth, for even if they do not say this, there is no other response.

Allah has prescribed, He has decreed, for Himself mercy, as a bounty from Him; this is a gentle summoning of them to the faith. He will surely gather you together on the Day of Judgment of which there is no doubt, no uncertainty, in order to requite you for your deeds. Those who have forfeited their own souls subject by exposing them to the chastisement — they do not believe.

In other words, for the believers in deferring His punishment, that He may bring human beings all together to the Day of Judgment ; whereof there is no doubt. Those who ruin their own souls, as well as their dwellings, servants and spouses in Paradise will not believe in Muhammad and the Quran.

————————————————————————————————

6) The Story of Abraham and his disbeliever guest

Abraham, the great Prophet and the father of all Prophet was famous of Hospitality and Kindness. He used not to eat unless he has guest or guests sharing with him his food.  One day, he has got a 60 years old guest.  He was happy and told his family to prepare food for the guest.  While waiting for food, Abraham asked the guest for his faith and religion.  The guest was disbeliever with no faith.

Abraham was disappointed and said: Sorry my guest, there is no food for you.

The guest left and walked away.

The Angel Gabriel came to Abraham and said:

Allah is giving this man food for 60 years and you refused to give him one meal!

And the Angel Gabriel smiled and disappeared!

Abraham ran bare footed to catch his guest back.

Finally, he found him

Abraham said: come on please, the food is ready for you

The guest said: what happened with you?

Abraham said: My God blamed me because of you

The guest said: your God did that?

Abraham said: O yes!

The guest said: then your God is Great and Merciful

The guest continued: tell me about your God

Abraham said: please come home to eat and I will tell you.

And at home, Abraham told him and the guest said: I believe in your God.

Then Abraham prayed to Allah and the angel Gabriel came back to him.

Abraham said:

‘O You Who is the most generous in pardoning!’

Then the angel Gabriel said to him:

‘O Abraham! Do you know what the generosity of His pardon implies?’

Abraham answered: ‘No, O Gabriel.’

The angel Gabriel said:

‘It is that when He pardons a misdeed, He converts it into a good deed.’

History OF The Photo ID

September 20, 2009 | Filed Under Civil War | No Comments

“For Fast, Easy and Certain Identification, Nothing Bests a Photograph”

On October 9th, 1804, the Governor of Massachusetts issued a passport to a man claiming to be Joseph Warren Revere, the son of famous patriot Paul Revere.  The passport did not include any description, signature and certainly no photograph of Joseph Revere.

Six month later, in England, the same man applied for another passport, offering as documentation his first passport and a letter of introduction allegedly from his father. The Charge d’ Affaires of the U.S Legation issued the passport on March 15, 1805.  This time the document, signed by Joseph Revere, included a brief description of him.

Were these passports issued to the same man, the man claiming to be Joseph Warren Revere, son of Paul Revere? The Governor of Massachusetts may have been able to vouch for Revere’s identity, but could the same be said of the Charge d’ Affaires in London and the Consul in Rotterdam? Could the man described by the Charge d’ Affaires as being “rather light” in complexion, with a “common” forehead and “large” chin, be described just three weeks later as having a “brown” complexion, with a “low” forehead and “normal” chin?

In fact, the holder of these passports was precisely who he said he was – Joseph Warren Revere, son of the famous patriot. But the discrepancies in the documents, their lack of positive identification and their susceptibility to damage, forgery, alteration and misappropriation, highlight challenges that still confront modern identification technology.  Are we who we say we are? Can we prove it? Can the identifying document be produced easily, quickly and inexpensively? Is it functional and say to use? Is it durable and permanent?

The concern for positive identification is a relatively recent phenomenon. For most of recorded history there was little need for positive identification because people rarely traveled beyond their own town or province.  When they did, there was little point in carrying identification documents because most people couldn’t reed or write.

Nevertheless, for the elite engaged in foreign travel, the use of passports can be traced to 450 B.C.  According to the Bible (Nehemiah 2.7), the King of Persia issued a passport to Nehemiah, the governor he appointed to rule Palestine: “If it please the King, let letters be given me to the governors of the province Beyond the River that they may let me pass through until I come to Judah.”

Prior to 1796 U.S. passports did not contain descriptions of their bearers, probably because they were assumed to be “gentlemen” whose moral standards would preclude misrepresentation and for whom an inspection of their physical features would be considered as insult.

Times and moral coded change. At the end of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress created the Department of Foreign Affairs (later to become the Department of the State) responsible for, among other things, the granting of passports.  As of 1976, U.S. passports issued abroad were required to contain physical descriptions. In 1811, the same requirement was extended to passports issued in Washington.

Local and state authorities issued passports until 1856, when Congress restricted to function to the federal Department of State.  Except for periods of war, passports were not required for international travel until 1914: until then they were merely government-to –government requests for safe passage and assistance for their citizens.

Introduction of Photography
With the invention of practical portrait photography by Louis Daguerre in 1839, in became possible to created true and defining photographs of people.  But even the greater of inventions take time to spread throughout society.  Photography remained a complicated and specialized process with few practitioners until 1888 when George Eastman introduced the Kodak Box Camera No. 1.  The camera came loaded with film and was returned to the factory for processing, printing and reloading.  In the first two years 1000,000 cameras were sold.

One of the earliest implementations of identification photography was a 1906 test by the U.S. War Department to add photographs to personnel records.

It wasn’t until 1915 that photographs were required comports of U.S passports. Until that time U.S. passports where printed on a single sheet of paper and contained essentially the same information as the design, ornamentation and the use of seals.  Six years later passports were printed on watermarked paper to guard against fraudulent alteration.

On the home front, to prevent spies, saboteurs and “fifth columnists” from infiltrating defense plants and other industries supporting wartime production, the government ordered employers to photograph and fingerprint all workers with access to sensitive areas and issue them photo identification documents that could be easily checked by security personnel. For most employers, this was the first time employee security and identification became a major issue in the workplace.

Unlike the armed forces identification effort, where a single department determined how the order would be satisfied, implementation was left in the hands of employers, subject to the approval of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  The Order proved somewhat difficult to carry out.

Some employers acted independently. Others, such as 157 companies in Racine, Wisconsin, formed a Manufactures Association that issued a standard identification document to all Racine defense workers led to two popular solutions – the photo button and the photo ID card.  Scores of homemade and commercial camera systems where developed for these purpose.

Photo buttons came in a variety of shapes, usually 1 ½ - 2 inches in diameter and were constructed of two diameter and were constructed of two pieces of brass.  The rear plate was solid metal, onto which was placed a photograph and acetate cover.  The brass cover plate was open in the middle to let the photo show through and had the name and location of the company embossed around its front perimeter.  The entire assembly was inserted into the hand press that bent the cover plate rim around the rear plate.  Any attempt to remove the acetate or pry open the brass was easily spotted.

While companies could send their employees to local photographers to have their portraits taken, many sought out a system that kept the photographic process under their own control, maximizing security, reducing costs, and keeping their workers on site.

Early ID Systems
One high volume ID camera developed for the war effort was the Graflex identification Unit, developed by the Folmer Graflex Corporation of Rochester, N.Y. It had a prefocused 75mm lens and an interchangeable film magazine holding up to 100 feet of 35mm film.  A fully loaded camera could take up to 800 portraits without reloading.

The Graflex camera was attached to an adjustable platform that could be raised or lowered to accommodate the subject, who was photographed standing in front of a height chart with their chest pressed against the front of the platform.  Facing the camera at the end of the platform was an ID holder; under normal operation conditions the system could photograph 200 people per hour.  One user was reported to have photographed as man as 480 people an hour.

Companies that didn’t have access to the Graflex camera or a similar unit, or couldn’t afford such a systems came up with their own solutions.  One such company was the Columbian Steel Tank Co. of Kansas City, Missouri.

In an article reprinted in several industrial publications in 1942, advertising manager R.S. Robinson described in detail how Columbian had pieced together a camera system similar in design and function to the Graflex system. Equipped with a $6.35 Kodak Brownie Reflex camera, a window shade for a backdrop, two lighting stands, lights and a die cutter, the total system cost was $30.  Each stopping to reload after every 12 photographs, the system was able to photograph 60 to 75 employees per hour – and like a Murphy bed, fold against the wall when not in use.

The Graflex, Columbian and other similar systems took head-and-shoulder portraits to create photo buttons and composite identification cards.  For organizations wanting a more secure identification card, cameras and systems were developed that would produce a one-piece, all-photo card.

Typical of these was to two-camera system built by Sam Kitrosser to produce identity cards for the Massachusetts Committee on Public Safety.  Kitrosser built a box equipped with portrait and document lights and two Ansco Memo single frame 35mm cameras mounted near the top.  One camera (loaded with portrait film) faced the subject and the other (loaded with high contrast copy film) shot into a mirror that reflected down into the inside of the box. Placed on the bottom was the subject’s data sheet.

Each camera had film plane masks, one to block out all but the portrait area and the other to block the portrait, permitting the data sheet to be photographed.  By sandwiching both negative together, they could be simultaneously printed to produce an all-photo ID card with data and portrait on a single sheet of photographic paper.  As a one-piece card, it was very hard to switch portraits without the attempt becoming obvious.

In a four-month period in 1942, Kitrosser and his assistant, and four other teams equipped with his identification system, criss-crossed Massachusetts, producing 250,000 identity cards for police, fire, mass transit and other engaged in civil defense and public safety work. 

The Monroe Duo-Camera
While the Kitrosser system and others like it produced a one-piece photo card from sandwiched negatives, a one-piece negative would be more secure.  The October 1941 issue of Photo Technique magazine reported on a system, called the Monroe Duo-Camera, that may well be considered the first modern photo identification system.

Developed by Spencer F. Monroe and marketed by the National Photo Identity Corp of Chicago, the one-step Monroe system produced a one-piece negative and embodied all the core functions of today’s most advanced film-based, central issuance identification systems

The article explained that Monroe got the idea for the camera in 1937 when he tried to cash a $200 expense check at a Miami hotel.  When the cashier asked for identification, Monroe emptied the contents of his wallet on the counter. The skeptical cashier responded. “Mister, all of these cards and things might have been picked off of somebody on the street”.

Monroe finally convinced the cashier of his identity by showing him a newspaper clipping that contained his photograph.

The experience led Monroe to develop a camera system that could simultaneously photograph on a single negative a portrait, signature, and thumb print and written data.  Four years later, in the midst of the concern for national security, the Monroe Duo-Camera entered the market.

The Monroe camera was equipped with two Wollensak fixed focus lenses, three portrait lights and two internal document lights.  The ingenious set-up placed the lenses on opposite sides of the film.  The portrait lens photographed the subject and projected the image onto the front of the film while the document lens projected the information sheet image off of a mirror and onto the back of the film.  Careful masking prevented the images form interfering with each other.

The Monroe camera held 200 feet of 35mm film and was said to be able to photograph an individual in five seconds and about 250 people in an hour.

The unidentified author of the 1941 article acknowledged the importance of photo identification to the war effort, but added this astute prediction about the Monroe photo identification system: “…probably the real future of the device lies in its ability to identify people in their picture helped Mr. Monroe to get his check cashed.”

In fact, photo ID cards have changed little in appearance since World War II.  Most, then as now, contain the holder’s photo, personal information, an identification number, an organizational logo, and the signature of an issuing officer. What has changed since the mid 40’s are the methods of production and security and functional features. 

Specialized Id Development
The first mayor post-war improvement in photo identification was the 1948 introduction of the Polaroid Land Model 95 instant camera.  First offered to the public in a Boston department store, the camera developed sepia colored pictures in one minute. Most of the demonstration pictures were of customers standing in front of a blank wall and staring into the camera, just as they would if the picture was to be used for an identification card.  In fact, standard Polaroid consumer cameras were used for composite ID card.

The first attempt to turn the standard camera into a more specialized identification product was the 1952 introduction of the Fairchild-Polaroid Id Camera, producing for Id photos on a single sheet of instant Polaroid film.  The Fairchild camera utilized the Model 95 camera back, containing the instant film transport and development system, and replaced the Polaroid lens/shutter assembly with a Wollensak assembly, stereo image splitter and shift lever.

With the lens assembly shifted down, the stereo splitter sent two side-by-side images through the lens and projected them onto the top half of the film.  Without advancing the film the assembly was shifted into its upward position and a second exposure was made, exposing tow new images on the bottom half of the film.

The Fairchild system camera sat on a tripod equipped with tow portrait lights extended right and left and a name plate/ID number holder in front of the camera.  The subject stood in front of a white pull-down screen with his chest placed against the name plate.  The camera could create dual portraits of tow individuals per minute, and allowing 10 minutes for reloading the camera, photograph 100 people in an hour.

In 1955 Polaroid introduced its own beam-splitter lens attachment, called the Stereo-Tech, which required no modifications to the standard Model 95 camera and produced two Id portraits on a single sheet of instant film.

Sam Kitrosser, who had developed a war-time ID camera system, worded for Polaroid after the war and then joined Itek Corp.  In 1961 he developed the Quad Camera for Itek, a four-lens affair that used the workhorse Polaroid Model 95 instant camera back as its film system.  The quad camera employed high-quality lenses and a professional viewing optic that made good use of studio lighting, as well as camera-mounted lights.  A lens cover system allowed the operator to take any or all of the four pictures at the same time.

History Of Hyderabad

September 19, 2009 | Filed Under Civil War | No Comments

Hyderabad is one of the fastest growing cities in India. It is the center for many industrial, commercial, and IT establishments blended with ancient structures and traditions which provide glimpses of splendid history of the city. Hyderabad with a history of over 400 years, is rich in diverse cultures.

The history of Hyderabad begins in 1512 after Quli Qutb Shah seized power from Bahamani kingdom and established the fortress city and kingdom of Golconda. Golconda was later named as Hyderabad after the name of Hyder Mahal, wife of Quli Qutb Shah. All the seven rulers of the Qutb Shahi dynasty were great builders, who contributed to the growth and development of  Indo-Persian and Indo-Islamic literature and culture in the city. Hyderabad became one of the leading markets of diamonds, pearls, steel for arms and printed fabric during the reign of Qutb Shahi. They ruled the Deccan nearly for 171 years.

The glory, fame and abundant prosperity of Hyderabad attracted the powerful Mughal emperor Aurangazeb to attack Hyderabad. After a long eight month seize, Aurangazeb captured Hyderabad in 1687. Aurangazeb expanded his Mughal empire covering the entire sub continent. However his empire rapidly declined after his death in 1707.

Mir Quamaruddin, the then Governor of the Deccan established Asif Jahi dynasty in 1724 and declared independence from Mughal rule. Asif Jahi dynasty ruled right up to 1948 nearly for 224 years. During this period Persian, Urdu, Telugu, and Marathi developed simultaneously. Irrespective of their religion, deserving persons were given highest official positions. Nizam won friendship with British and French and continued to rule. The Nizams contributed to the growth and development of Hyderabad both economically and culturally. They built huge reservoirs like the Nizam Sagar, Tungabadra, Osman Sagar and Himayath Sagar. The state had its own currency, mint, postal system and railways.

Hyderabad became the capital city of Andhra Pradesh on November 1, 1956. Today it is called as Greater Hyderabad and has grown from 175 sq.km. To 650 sq.km. It is regarded as a major IT hub as many IT and ITES have set up their operations here. It has numerous fortune 500 companies. Hyderabad has three central universities, two deemed universities and six state universities. It is the financial and economical capital of the state.

The history of Hyderabad is rich and diverse. As many different dynasties ruled the city, many diversified monuments, cultures, and traditions have evolved. And Hyderabadis have developed a distinct culture, which is a mixture of both ancient Hindu and Islamic cultures.

Categories

• Civil War

Archives

• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009