I'm sorry but I thought this was supposed to be early modern Islamic governance. I wouldn't characterize the caliphate and Crusades as early modernism.
There is absolutely no Hadith which talks of hair in palm of the hand. The challenge stands before Bulliet to prove otherwise since he claims to be the authority in the field. The Book which the prof. refers to, "the sea of virtues" is by some Iranian unanimous writer (obviously a non-Arabic native speaker) in fact originally found to be written in Persian language, It is not a book on Suna as the prof. claimed.
I've watched a lot of his lectures, slowly over a longer period and I think this is really the essence of all of them. They have a lot of small detail, anecdotes almost, that he often openly describes as his own speculation or otherwise as something that should not be taken as fact. Sometimes entire lectures seem off topic compared to the lecture title. But as you put it so well, he attempts very well to explain history and often succeeds in showing the greater trends through the more intimate smaller details. Even when those details might very well be inaccurate. Once you realise this is what is going on, the lectures are great, in my opinion of course.
nice vedio i liked it...
krishna Kavoor എന്ത്?
I'm sorry but I thought this was supposed to be early modern Islamic governance. I wouldn't characterize the caliphate and Crusades as early modernism.
There is absolutely no Hadith which talks of hair in palm of the hand. The challenge stands before Bulliet to prove otherwise since he claims to be the authority in the field. The Book which the prof. refers to, "the sea of virtues" is by some Iranian unanimous writer (obviously a non-Arabic native speaker) in fact originally found to be written in Persian language, It is not a book on Suna as the prof. claimed.
Bad sound
54:44 :D
Wow he really can’t pronounce Arabic
Numerous errors in the professor's lesson, although a great attempt to explain history.
I've watched a lot of his lectures, slowly over a longer period and I think this is really the essence of all of them. They have a lot of small detail, anecdotes almost, that he often openly describes as his own speculation or otherwise as something that should not be taken as fact. Sometimes entire lectures seem off topic compared to the lecture title. But as you put it so well, he attempts very well to explain history and often succeeds in showing the greater trends through the more intimate smaller details. Even when those details might very well be inaccurate.
Once you realise this is what is going on, the lectures are great, in my opinion of course.