Eastern University Books

This is the most sympathetic and healthy accounts of Palestinian Arabs you're ever likely to encounter. Written with disarming simplicity. I assign this book to my classes whenever possible.

Wonderful book. Gives a very insightful summary of the history of Israel from an Arab perspective on a personal scale. The author envelopes you into the story of one ordinary family's life from life in the British mandate through the beginning of the Intifadah. As well as being a description of Arab life within Israel, this book also provides interesting material about the life of small-scale agriculturalists in Arabia.

"Nakamura's methodology combines the field techniques of anthropology, archival research, and the political analysis of social movements to gather information on deaf movements in Japan in the postwar era, with the goal of understanding what it means to subscribe to "deaf identity" in Japan. She frequently includes cross-cultural perspectives from international deaf movements and language systems to contextualize the Japanese case, as well as poses thoughtful and provocative questions about personal and communal identities by comparing the Japanese deaf community to other minority groups in Japan. Nakamura's monograph is extremely important because it explores disability in a wider context--as deafness cuts across all class, ethnic, and gender lines--and explores disability as a social construct for identity formation." --Carolyn S. Stevens, Journal of Japanese Studies

This was a very good, easy to read book. It was very interesting and I am intersted in learning more about the topic.

This is an extraordinary work. Averroes is here presenting a 'legal' case against the art of Kalam (speculative theology) with the Islamic Jurists sitting in Judgment. But, and this is important, this argument is not against religion per se. Now, the Latin West was very aware of the Aristotelian writings of Averroes but unaware of his other writings. The Christians knew his Commentaries and even of his controversy with Ghazali. But they were largely unaware of his works that attempt to 'harmonize' philosophy and revelation (i.e., religious law). The 'Decisive Treatise' is among the most important of these. Here Averroes is at pains to show that not only isn't philosophy forbidden by the Koran; it is in fact commanded - but only for some!

Humanity is divided into three groups by Averroes. There are the common people (the 'people of rhetoric'), people of uncommon discernment (the 'people of dialectic'), and philosophers (the 'people of demonstration'). It is a pyramid, with the ordinary people at the base and the falasifa (i.e., Islamic philosophers) at the summit. But this is no celebration of diversity, the ideal that hovers over these pages is Ijma - consensus. Averroes is charging the 'people of dialectic' with the ruin of consensus. What ruins consensus? Interpretation. The 'people of interpretation' (both Falasifa and Theologians) must keep the vagaries of interpretation from the people. In this the Islamic Theologians have, according to our author, failed miserably. The Falasifa are let off with a slap.

Now, to introduce a schema not entirely foreign to the text, one could say that in the medieval Islamic landscape there are basically three institutions: Law, Theology, Philosophy. What Averroes intends to do is forbid access to theological and philosophical speculation (i.e., interpretation) to the people. Okay, but why involve the Islamic Jurists? Because the Theologians have proven incapable of keeping their interpretational arguments from the people. This has two consequences -the ruin of consensus, and the rise of unbelief- and they are both bad. The Jurists are interjected into these interpretational arguments in order to keep these disputes from the common people. The Jurists, guided by the falasifa, are to decide what can and cannot be publicly said. One is tempted to say that this in effect leaves the falasifa as the only competent interpreter.

But it seems it would be a mistake to say that Averroes intends to do away with the Islamic Theologians. There are things in the Koran about which demonstrative certainty is impossible, thus there must be discussion of the (merely) possible - this is the legitimate realm of dialectics. It is only the overriding importance of Ijma (consensus) in the Islamic context that makes the Jurists more 'important' than the Theologians. The theologians discuss possibilities that should only be heard by a few; the Law (i.e., the Koran) however, is for all. But this last objection can be aimed at the falasifa too. The people are only capable of hearing the Law through rhetorical imagery, not speculative interpretation. Thus the theoretical (whether demonstrative or dialectical) can never be a matter of consensus.

So, if Law is for all and interpretation is not why should the Jurists consent to the leadership of the Falasifa? -Two reasons. First, the people are not One. The Law (i.e., Koran) is intended for all but It relates to each type differently. Secondly, there are passages in the Koran Itself about which there is 'legitimate' dispute. Speculation, whether of philosophy or Kalam, is required and thus not to be silenced if it is hidden from the people. Again, the Law (Koran) is One, and It has one intention. It intends "only to teach true science and true practice." But this Intention manifests itself in various ways. For this the finesse and moderation of philosophy -the first well beyond the ability of the Jurists, the latter well beyond the ability of the theologians- is required.

Averroes concludes his 'case' by noting that more could be said - and then he doesn't say it. In this manner Averroes demonstrates the restraint of philosophy vis-à-vis the Islamic Theologians.

But this review is not under any such constraint; thus I add a few points. Interpretation is only dangerous if it becomes generally known. The speculations of the philosophers are not a problem because they and they alone know how to hide. One is tempted to ask whether this is 'proven' or 'falsified' by the fact that elements of the Averroistic position are taken up in the Medieval Latin West (e.g., Siger, Marsilius, Dante) that eventually come to 'fruition' in Machiavelli and then the Enlightenment. It is not simply a mistake to consider Averroes the great-grandfather of the European Enlightenment. But the Latins did not know the whole Averroes. Thus the heirs of this misunderstanding did not realize that the Enlightenment that Averroes foresaw was never meant to be Universal. The line of descent that one can draw from the Latin radical Averroists to the Enlightenment ends by making it a point of both honor and theory to say everything to everyone. -Averroes would have been appalled.

As to the controversy between Averroes and Ghazali one can briefly say that Averroes is an inverse Ghazali; the latter demands the censure of philosophy while the former demands the censure of Kalam. In both cases consensus is not to be disturbed. Thus the argument between them is this: how is speculative mania to precede in a History in which consensus must remain undisturbed? Averroes chose the Jurists because Ghazali's choice -theological speculation- led to dissension in the community. Unfortunately, the 'secularists' in the Latin West (in the line of Radical Averrosm) will, after severing all ties to theology, take to their own brand of 'speculation'. Thus Ideology replaced Revelation and philosophy goes from pillar to post. ...Perhaps there will soon be a genuine philosopher calling for an 'alliance' with religion? And why not? There are, after all, ultimately only two things of which we have been speaking: philosophy and the tools of philosophy (i.e., theology and the political).

What theoretical speculation intends is the Truth; what the Law (understood as Nomos) intends is consensus. However, Science and Philosophy are cumulative, speculation cannot be stopped. There is no 'consensus' in theoretical matters. But Revelation (Law) -whether Jewish, Christian or Islamic- routinely claims to be at an end. Thus just as speculation (philosophical mania) and religious Law could not sync up - one wonders how long the 'honeymoon' between philosophy and secular 'enlightened' law will last. The Laws (whether religious or secular) will always have the forbidden. But philosophical mania forbids itself nothing... Even though Averroes is at pains to argue that philosophers possess theoretical virtue while the jurists possess practical virtue and thus can be reconciled we must note that this would only be true if theoretical and practical virtue were themselves reconcilable. But this could only be true if mania and moderation were reconcilable...

So, "whenever demonstration leads to something different from the apparent sense of the Law, that apparent sense admits of interpretation..." In other words, one finesses (or creates) the 'reconciliation'. But Creativity was the Ideal of the theologians (i.e., Divine Creativity) just as creativity is today an idol of 'enlightened' modernity. But for the medieval Aristotelians creativity (making) is opposed to knowing, and thus something of a bête noire. Creativity is a sign that something has gone wrong. Thus when Averroes, who all along in this text had insisted upon the tripartite division of humanity (the rhetorical, dialectical, demonstrative), at the very end creates a fourth type (for the Jurists) between the 'low level' of the traditionalists and the 'turbulence' of the theologians we are perhaps made aware of the ad hoc nature of this 'alliance' between Philosophy and Jurists.

Of this 'solution' we can say that the Law (Koran) is divided in two (surface and hidden) but humanity is divided in three. There are two interpretive classes (Demonstrative, Dialectical) and two classes that deal with the apparent/surface (Dialectical, Rhetorical) and the dialectical participates in both. Dialectic is neither demonstrative theory nor simple faith but a mixture of both. All the doctrinal problems that arise are due to the dialectical class. One closes this book wondering how the invention of a 'fourth type' of humanity -another mixture- would solve anything. After all, as Averroes says, demonstrative "interpretation ought not to be declared to those adept in dialectic, not to mention the multitude." Thus we should perhaps not mention that any alliance with philosophy (whether consisting of theologians or politicos) is an alliance in name only.

The major fault line in this alliance is best exposed by considering the fact that sound interpretation is not the same as true interpretation. The Jurists are concerned with behavior and results while the philosophers are concerned with a Truth that the Jurists (or our modern politicos) cannot possibly understand. It is in the end this lack of understanding -"and that will be grasped after the slightest examination by anyone who is cognizant of the condition of demonstration"- that dooms all philosophical alliances...

This brief essay by Averroes is magnificent; it pulls back the curtain, however briefly, on something that is rarely seen. Look away if you can. The Islamic Translation Series and C. E. Butterworth have our thanks.

Ibn Rushd or Averroes is one of the most important philosophers in the Islamic tradition, and also one of the most important of all commentators on Aristotle. And Charles Butterworth is one of the premiere translators of Averroes.

This particular text is a very important defense of philosophy against those (in Averroes's specific case, Muslims) who argued that philosophical reasoning is a violation of religious law. Such issues are still alive, more or less (for example, in the struggle between science and religion), so this book has more than merely antiquarian interest.

The translation is very clear, and, for those who read Arabic, it's helpful to have the original text on the facing page. Given the quality of the work, too, the book is surprisingly inexpensive.

Highly recommended.

The Mahmutcehajic's work is a perfect literature for anyone who ever wanted to know why Bosnian war happened, why Genocide, Concentration camps and enormous human suffering and misery occurred at the end of the twentieth century and what was this conflict all about. I am sure this essay will satisfy anyone who wants to discover more about Bosnian tragedy either professionally or out of curiosity. For historians an politicians Mahmutcehajic's work represents an excellent and detailed expertise, for history, politics or international affairs Students it is the richest resource available about War in Bosnia and for just a curious reader it is the best yet informer about one of the greatest human tragedies in this century.

The Mahmutcehajic's work is a perfect literature for anyone who ever wanted to know why Bosnian war happened, why Genocide, Concentration camps and enormous human suffering and misery occurred at the end of the twentieth century and what was this conflict all about. I am sure this essay will satisfy anyone who wants to discover more about Bosnian tragedy either professionally or out of curiosity. For historians an politicians Mahmutcehajic's work represents an excellent and detailed expertise, for history, politics or international affairs Students it is the richest resource available about War in Bosnia and for just a curious reader it is the best yet informer about one of the greatest human tragedies in this century.

This is the only book that I've read that gives an uncensored account of the war from a Japanese citizen. He brings up a lot of questions about the Japanese government and their extreme stupidity. He also tells of what it's like to live in a war torn country.

What I found quite intriguing was his predictions early in the war that eventually came true. It's too bad he did not live to see the end of the war.

This diary is aptly named. The mood is somber, and the images are distorted, like those in a nightmare. I used to be skeptical about claims that the Japanese people would have fought an American invasion in the streets, and that millions could have been killed in the carnage. After reading this journal, I'm inclined to believe it could have happened. Patriotism and solidarity hijacked by fools and fanatics took Japan down a long tunnel, chronicled by Kiyoshi. Many Japanese were lost in a haze of self-deception. Kiyoshi contemporaneously describes the conflict between the Japanese Army and Navy - Japan was certainly not united, though few would speak this truth out loud. Kiyoshi documents the capacity of bureaucrats bent on impressing their higher-ups to speak silly nonsense; his disgust is palpable. He reveals the extent of famine in the final years, when his own most precious resource is a garden plot. Kiyoshi's description of the April 16, 1945, bombing of Tokyo captures facts and a mood: "The newly built factories of Shimomaruko had become nothing more than burned fields. In some places we heard thumps and the explosions of time-delayed bombs. ... I saw the burning of the Kawasaki industrial area and Shimomaruko and was astonished at the totality of the destructive power of modern war. Now I see its burned remains. This all happened in a period of less than ten hours. The electric trains stop, and electricity no longer flows. The water system and gas are halted. According to Akita's account, people who fled to the riverbank of the Tama were killed by bombs, and corpses without heads and trunks were transported away." Also startling are his simple sentences announcing major events. (Fri, April 13):"There is a report that President Roosevelt has died of a cerebral hemorrhage." (Mon, April 23): "The Red Army is invading Berlin. The Nazis will die in suicidal stand to the bitter end. Is such a style of warfare to be praised?" (Wed, May 2): "There is a report that Hitler is dead. It has been communicated that Mussolini has also been murdered." Kiyoshi (who lived for several years in the U.S. before the end of World War I), never saw the end of the Second World War. The last entry in his diary was May 5, 1945. He died that month of pneumonia, caused by malnutrition. This book is rightly seen as a classic. It is a powerful warning about the consequences of arrogance and self-delusion.

In my studies of Mesopotamia, I had never really known much about Dilmun and Magan, places which are mentioned in several Mesdopotamian texts. My choice was between Geoffrey Bibby's book on Dilmun published in 1972, and this book which was published in 1998. Having read Professor Crawford's book `Sumer and the Sumerians' I finally decided on her book primarily because it was more recent.

The book, which focuses on the period 5000-1700BC, is a detailed survey of the findings from about 125 archaeological sites on the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf from the island of Falaika at the head of the Gulf, the `Eastern Province' of Arabia including Tarut Island and the Bahrain Islands, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates to the Musandum at the Straits of Hormuz, the interior sites of Oman and the coastal sites along the east side of that peninsula down to the most easterly point of the Arabian Peninsula at Ras al Junayz.

Chapter 1: The Setting, describes the physical setting of the area, and provides the rationale for identifying Dilmun with the Eastern Province and the islands of Bahrain, while noting that references to Dilmun in the Mesopotamian texts may have referred to different parts of this area at different times The copper rich sites in Oman is the reason for identifying it with Magan whose copper mines were of considerable importance to the Sumerian and Akkadian dynasties.

Chapter 2: The Earliest Settlements, covers the archaeological sites for the earliest period period of human settlement in the Eastern Province and Bahrain from about 5000BC to 3000BC which is the time of the Ubaid, Uruk, and Jemdat Nasr periods in Mesopotamia. Current archaeological evidence is sparse, but it seems that after the initial settlement phase during the 5th millenium, these were largely deserted during most of the 4th millenium until the Jemdat Nasr period when contacts between these areas and Mesopotamia revive.

Chapter 3: The Development of Dilmun, covers the archaological sites and textual evidence of the 3rd millenium. There is little evidence of settlement in the Eastern Province and Bahrain until about 2500BC, when the first urban settlement developed on Tarut Island where workshops for pottery manufacture, and other material such as lapis lazuli, copper, and steatite have been excavated. On Bahrain Island itself, the vast area of ancient burial mounds at Saar date from around 2500BC and were built and often reused over a period of about 2000 years lasting into the Hellenistic age. Professor Crawford points out that over the past 30 years surveys and excavation of newly identified towns and villages show that enough local people lived on the island to fill the graves, arguing against the hypothesis that Bahrain was a necropolis for Mesopotamian royalty and aristocracy.

Chapters 4 and 5 cover the period 2000-1750BC when there was a dramatic expansion of settlement on Bahrain This is the so-called period of `Early Dilmun', when it appears that Bahrain traders acted as the middlemen between the states of lower Mesopotamia and the mining businesses of the Oman Peninsula. The evidence for settlement, the architecture of domestic, workshop, and temple buildings, graves, and artefacts is described in considerable detail.

Chapters 6 and 7 cover the same things for the Oman Peninsula, where direct contact with Mesopotamia seems to have been replaced by contacts with cities in Central Asia and with the Harappan cities on the Indus River.

Chapter 8 provides an overview of the Development and Decline of Dilmun.

This is a thorough and up to date study of the findings from the archaeological sites along the south side of the Arabian (Persian) Gulf and the Oman Peninsula. Of the 250+ references in the bibliography, fully two thirds were published in the 15 years immediately prior to the publication of this book in 1998. The descriptions of the architecture of buildings and tombs is well supported by photographs and illustrations, and the differences and similarity in styles between the two areas is also very clear. There are several maps showing the general area of most settlements, but only about half of the named sites are shown on any map. I eventually found a more detailed map of Oman and the UAE on the web, but still had to resort to Internet searches for information on those sites which I couldn't find on this map. Even so, this left about a dozen which were not listed in the index, and for which I have no idea as to even their general location. A small point perhaps, but I find that knowing where things are is helpful to my understanding.

A similar observation can be made about dates. I recognize that it is obviously very difficult to pinpoint 3rd - 5th millenium dates with any certainty, but it would have helped if the author had included some kind of dating line even if it was broken down into every 250 years. I eventually developed one for myself but I still have some doubts about its accuracy.

This is a fairly short book (the main body of the text is only 156 pages), but the level of detail is such that I found a single reading was insufficient for me to truly absorb what I was reading. As a result I had to reread it several times and make copious notes on the findings by site and time period. While this is not a criticism of the book it does mean that if you want to get the most from this book, then a quick read through is not going to do it unless you are very familiar with the latest archaelogical information.

In this book, professor Crawford provides an excellent, up-to-date report on what is presently known about the ancient society of Dilmun and others in the Persian Gulf area. Three areas are reported upon: North-western Arabia, Bahrain (Dilmun), and Oman (Magan). The author exhaustively reports on archaeological findings (including architecture, burial items, pottery, and more), analyzing their significance, but avoiding any broad speculation.

I can't say enough about this book. If you want to know what is presently known about Dilmun and Magan, but wish to avoid the extreme speculation (if not outright guesswork) of many books, then this book is for you!

Hevelone-Harper has written an excellent book outlining the nature and dynamics of spiritual authority in the monastery of Barsanuphius, John, and Seridos. Those interested in 6th century monasticism and spirituality will find this book to be a great resource.

Hevelone-Harper has written a clear and comprehensive account of spiritual authority and monastic life in 6th century Gaza. She enters into the conversation of anchorites, monks, and laypeople through the correspondence of Saints Barsanuphius and John. This approach helps the reader appreciate the mindset of these 6th century people in a personal, as well as historical way. A wonderful introduction to Late Antique monasticism and for anyone who wants to learn more about the history of Christian spirituality.

Dispersing The Ghetto: The Relocation Of Jewish Immigrants Across America by Jack Glazier (Professor and Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at Oberlin College) is the intimate and compressive history of the massive immigration of eastern European Jews to American coastal cities in the years prior to World War I Readers will follow the increasingly hostile and restrictive discriminations of Jews in their native homeland, through the depressive and seemingly trite struggles for control taken by German-American Jews in America to exploit their co-religionists' naiveté regarding their new homes as their departure from the ghettos of major American portal cities made room for more immigrants, presenting a greater threat to more prosperous, financially secure, preexisting communities of the Jewish middle and upper classes. Dispersing The Ghetto is an informed and scholarly depiction of the Jewish struggle with one-another in times already hard for all, and is very strongly recommended to students of American Urban History, and of Judaic Studies in particular.

In 1901, American Jews with German backgrounds living in East coast U.S. cities established an Industrial Removal Office (IRO). They did this to encourage and to help other German-American Jews locate to other places throughout America not only to better their lives and prospects by getting them out of the crowded, crime-ridden ghettos, but also to separate them from the large numbers of Russian Jews arriving in the ghettos at the time. A primary motivation for the IRO was to try to head off anti-Semitism which could mount against Jews crowded into the ghettos. Its founders were concerned that the undesirable social conditions and related social problems of the ghettos would become magnified by the influx of so many Russian Jews, leading to both intensified anti-Semitism and tighter U.S. immigration policies which would have adverse consequences on all Jews in America as well as Eastern Europe. Despite its good intentions and practical use, the IRO was inevitably controversial. It had some resemblance to a bureaucratic, and even a totalitarian, organization to control segments of a population; and even in the most benign view, it was founded by and reserved for a subgroup of a religious minority whose place and activities in Western culture had long been subject to special scrutiny and oftentimes hostility. It inevitably raised suspicions about Jewish intentions and assimilation among the public, and questions about its propriety and purposes within the German Jewish community. Glazier, Chair of the Dept. of Anthropology at Oberlin College who also has a broad background in Jewish studies, relates the work and brief history of the Industrial Relocation Office, including its controversial place within the community it was meant to serve, with sociological matter and statistics, documents, news articles, and oral history.

Does the Land Remember Me?: A Memoir of Palestine (Arab American Writing)
This book is a heart-filled memoir of Mr. Aziz's trip to his homeland to visit his elderly mother after 4 decades of absense. His interaction with all of his relatives who were not able to leave Palestine provides a very personal glimpse of their lives and frustrations today. Unfortunately we lost this spokesman to cancer in October 2007.

Palestinian/American Aziz Shihab goes back to his occupied homeland to visit his aging mother and to connect with some land he still owns. While there, he offers us a painful look at this renowned political occurrence. Shihab's passages are full of distressingly endearing encounters with Arabs and Jews (friends, enemies, and in-betweens). Many of these encounters are like dreams where things don't add up, but are pursued for some vestige of logic. Nevertheless, Shihab manages to incorporate a sense of humor into the tidings. One is compelled to turn the page and go on to the next scenario. Who among us has not felt powerless as the political winds shift directions? Aziz Shihab's book produces a lasting impression of this global consternation.

If you want to learn Eastern Arabic, This is the book!

I wrote the previous review. I want to make sure that people are aware they need the tapes to this book which covers all the chapters. If you have a person that speaks this dialect then you probably will not need the tapes.
What makes this a good book is it covers the same sentences when spoken to a man, woman, group, and third person.
1.It introduces each word separetly with its meaning before adding it to a sentence.
2. It covers grammer but not to the point you get sick.
3. It has exercises at the end of each chapter to test your knowledge.
4. Each chapter is only several pages and cover situations, example shopping.
5. Each lesson builds on the previous and makes sure to keep words that were learned continue to be used or reviewed.
6. The book contains 30 lessons and an arabic-english, english -arabic dictionary at the end of most of the words covered in the book.
The bad
1. If this course is bought throuh Amazon the tapes do not come with it and must be purchased seperatly.
2. I bought the entire course through Audio forum for 185$ which includes the 8 tapes. I know its expensive but I have not seen any eastern arabic course compare to it. ( not yet)