4 ms·
Let's not forget that the Islamic world was key (though not alone) in preserving our scientific and cultural knowledge. At that time, Islamic society was quite
by zwaps 7y ago
Let's not forget that the Islamic world was key (though not alone) in preserving our scientific and cultural knowledge.
At that time, Islamic society was quite modern and tolerant - and even often the destination for persecuted religious groups such as the Jews in Spain.
It is absolutely clear that modern Islam is, in fact, much more "conservative" than it used to be in the beginning. Indeed, the very beginning of Islam was a radically progressive movement in the region. It freed slaves, it gave rights to women, it treated with other religions and it abhorred hereditary and even defacto differences between humans. Many of the things that we now find so backwards were a) not as strict at the time and b) much more advanced than other societies in the region.
A good example is the difference between the initial Islamic state and the Persian empire. The Persians didn't even fully understand that they were dealing with a sort of grassroots movement, and were constantly trying to find the equivalent of a high status ruler to talk to. But early leaders in the Islamic world were completely different, living in normal or even poor circumstances and operating in a much more democratic manner than was the norm.
Later, these societal properties were the reason that the Arabic world was able to preserve and advance science and culture. Sadly, this did not last into this century, but the reasons for this are complex and almost surely political.
I say this is important to remember because we need to realize that religion and - further - ethnicity (and of course race) are not ingrained attributes determining who is conservative. We need to remember that there was a time when Islam was the paragon of reason and rationality, while Christianity was the embodiment of fanatic action.
In the end, it is all politics, not the people. We do well to remember these things, because it keeps us from condemning other cultures, as it so often happens!
- Symmetry 7y agoIt's really interesting reading Al-Khwarizmi writing back and forth with Ibn Sina speculating about life on other planets and whether they might have been visited by prophets too. Much, though not all, of the big scientific work in the Islamic world was in Iran and central Asia. But eventually enlightenment led to counter enlightenment and the rise of Gnosticism and mysticism. Then the Mongols rode in and killed everyone. They were normally good about capturing cities in an economically useful state, especially if they surrendered, but Ala ad-Din Muhammad II really pissed of Genghis Khan who was mostly busy with China at the time and couldn't spare the troops for a conquest, just an invasion. So they killed everyone in the cities except a few hundred they shipped back to Mongolia. Then came back a few weeks later and killed any survivors who had come out of hiding. And central Asia went from a trade nexus with possibly the largest cities in the world to the state we know it in today.
- jacobolus 7y agoFor more, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samanid_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samanid_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaznavids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaznavids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghurid_dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghurid_dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuk_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuk_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarazmian_dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarazmian_dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_Khwarezmia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_Khwarezmia
- yters 7y agoIslam is largely Arabic, but is it the case that things attributed to Arabia are mostly Islamic?
- zwaps 7y agoNot at all, the Koran is written in the context of Arabia at the time. This is not a matter of interpretation, the book itself references local customs and laws. Therefore, our understanding, the practice and everything else in Islam is crucially shaped by the society in Arabia, and the change it brought to it. I think it is best read and understood in terms of the Delta - the change - it meant to convey (but that is my opinion). On the other hand, however, much of the Arabic language and customs are of course shaped by Islam. For example, one difficulty of interpreting the Islam is that the words that are used now convey the connotation that was coined by centuries of religious practice, and it is difficult to know exactly what they originally meant. In addition, much like the Bible (translations), it coined many terms and semantic concepts. Overall, the question you pose it not answerable in any way. Interpreting the core - the Koran - does not have a unique solution. And even though Islam has taken great care to preserve the text, traditions and reasons behind them, it is not clear cut. For example, the large majority of Muslisms prescribe to the Hadiths as interpretation and additional norms, but there are also Hadidths stating that you should not do that, and the Koran is enough. But on that basis, many more interpretations would be possible. Paradoxically - and in contrast to Christianity - the Muslisms who rely primarily on the book alone, are much more progressive than the ones also relying on the traditions. I don't think your question will find a true answer.
- csomar 7y ago> the Muslisms who rely primarily on the book alone, are much more progressive than the ones also relying on the traditions. As an ex-Muslim, the way I see it is: If you were to rely primarily/only on the Koran, it is because you want to justify and legitimate your own agenda. The Koran is very flexible and can be either very progressive or very conservative, strict and violent. So you make your pick and then find the particular "bayt" that supports your claims :)
- 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- acqq 7y ago> It freed slaves Only if they converted. Otherwise the slavery never stopped to be OK for that religion (those paying the "protection" are also not allowed to be enslaved). See the (currently insulting) word used for slaves in South Africa, where the slaves from the northern African areas were sold by the adherents to the said religion. Also in the other parts of the world: http://www.lankalibrary.com/cul/kaffirs.htm http://www.lankalibrary.com/cul/kaffirs.htm > gave rights to women Which?
- dingoegret 7y agoMuslims inherited a great number if slaves from the empires they conquered. The most responsible political course of action was to introduce gradual manumission with incentives that would benefit the people of the Caliphate. So yes, they did free slaves. It wasn't some fairy tale day 1 everyone is free now, let society burn in disorder, do whatever you want, but it was the correct thing to do.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]