3 ms·

The average person in the West today somehow thinks that Ancient Greeks entered a time machine and reappeared later in the Renaissance. Some get angry when you

The average person in the West today somehow thinks that Ancient Greeks entered a time machine and reappeared later in the Renaissance. Some get angry when you mention that Europe received the torch of knowledge directly from the Islamic world via Spain and Italy, because it invalidates this vision of the world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnA-ESWcPs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnA-ESWcPs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paper#Paper_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paper#Paper_in_Euro... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_translations_of_the_12th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_translations_of_the_12th...

rramadass 4y ago
The average person in the Islamic world gets upset if you point out that the "Golden Age of Islam" is more due to the advanced cultures of the countries conquered and appropriated under the Islamic banner. There was quite an advanced world before 7th century AD i.e. before the advent of Islam. Persia, Mesopotamia, The Levant, The Mediterranean, Greece, Turkey, India, China etc. all hosted advanced cultures. Islamic conquest/trade acted as a conduit in the exchange and amplification of ideas from various parts of the world to Europe who then took off impressively to birth the "Modern World".
- realworldperson 4y ago
  [dead]
- getcrunk 4y ago
  I don’t think anyone should get upset at that if you acknowledge it was a two way street.
  - rramadass 4y ago
    But that is the thing; it wasn't a two-way street. When a country/culture is conquered by the sword, they don't have a say in how their culture is suppressed/destroyed/distorted; the conqueror can rewrite history as he chooses and that is exactly what has happened with Islam. In fact some folks have called Islam as merely an "Intermediate Civilization" between Greek/Roman and Renaissance periods (see Between Hellenism and Renaissance—Islam, The Intermediate Civilization by S.D.Goitein). An analogy that i make is - Arabs : 7th-12th centuries :: Mongols : 13th-15th centuries. Both were "primitive" in comparison to the cultures they conquered, but were indispensable in acting as a conduit for the spread of ideas from one part of the world to another. See also: 1) http://hist.science.online.fr/storie/IERI/Myth_islams_contribution_short.htm http://hist.science.online.fr/storie/IERI/Myth_islams_contri... 2) Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World.
    - erenyeager 4y ago
      Two-way can come in the sense as the main thing conquests spread was dominance of Islamic religion in a region, even if conversions didn’t not occur until later. The conquest of the Sassanian Empire for example would later lead to things like the prolific grammarian of Arabic Sibawayh, a Muslim of descent from what is now Iran. While he was not even from Arabic nor a native speaker of Arabic, he became one of the best Arabic grammarians in his quest for Islamic knowledge. Without the expansion of the Islamic nations, we would not expect to see this. Ultimately religion became a uniting force among disparate peoples, binding them into one Muslim nation.
      - rramadass 4y ago
        Islamic religion had become a uniting force only by "spreading by the sword" since in the original form as conceived by the Arabs it was merely a simplistic dogma tuned to their needs, times and culture. It was the conquered cultures which brought in a huge Knowledge Base into it which was then sold under the Islamic/Arabic banner. But because of the inherent intolerant nature of Islam (as the linked article in my previous comment points out about the rejection of Mutazilism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazilism) Islam inevitably declined into the mess that it is today. Contrast it against the spread, stability and popularity of Buddhism and you can see the stark difference. The latter is constructive while the former is destructive, the latter harmoniously marries Native culture to Religion (eg. Buddhism in Sri Lanka vs. China vs. Japan etc.) while the former is consumed by hatred, infighting and identity crisis.
        erenyeager 4y ago
        You are sorely wrong and ignorant as to the topics you discuss. To wallow in bias is to stay lost. Conversions to Islam under Islamic empires like Umayyads and Abbasids did not in general occur by the “sword”. You can look up the historical demographics, it took a long time for some areas like the Levant and even Egypt for a majority of the population to convert. Conversions occurred for a variety of reasons, but being force by the sword is definitely not a major factor. Even still today many places retained their minority religion populations. As for blend of culture and religion, you can easily say same for Islamic cultures which harmonized with cultures as widely as Indonesia to West and South Asian under its fold. As for mutazilism, that has nothing to do with the topic, and the mutazilites themselves had people killed for not following their beliefs when they influenced the ruler, so their downfall was only by what they perpetuated. Next you sell Buddhism as perfect at peace, yet there is well known infighting between various branches in Buddhism. Not to mention it does not end ethnic strife (see the genocide of Rohingya in Burma). Be honest not dogmatic.
- 29athrowaway 4y ago
  The Islamic world before and after the Mongol invasion are completely different. Many of the polymaths and philosophers of the Islamic Golden Age were Persian.

rramadass 4y ago

The average person in the Islamic world gets upset if you point out that the "Golden Age of Islam" is more due to the advanced cultures of the countries conquered and appropriated under the Islamic banner. There was quite an advanced world before 7th century AD i.e. before the advent of Islam. Persia, Mesopotamia, The Levant, The Mediterranean, Greece, Turkey, India, China etc. all hosted advanced cultures. Islamic conquest/trade acted as a conduit in the exchange and amplification of ideas from various parts of the world to Europe who then took off impressively to birth the "Modern World".

realworldperson 4y ago
[dead]
getcrunk 4y ago
I don’t think anyone should get upset at that if you acknowledge it was a two way street.
- rramadass 4y ago
  But that is the thing; it wasn't a two-way street. When a country/culture is conquered by the sword, they don't have a say in how their culture is suppressed/destroyed/distorted; the conqueror can rewrite history as he chooses and that is exactly what has happened with Islam. In fact some folks have called Islam as merely an "Intermediate Civilization" between Greek/Roman and Renaissance periods (see Between Hellenism and Renaissance—Islam, The Intermediate Civilization by S.D.Goitein). An analogy that i make is - Arabs : 7th-12th centuries :: Mongols : 13th-15th centuries. Both were "primitive" in comparison to the cultures they conquered, but were indispensable in acting as a conduit for the spread of ideas from one part of the world to another. See also: 1) http://hist.science.online.fr/storie/IERI/Myth_islams_contribution_short.htm http://hist.science.online.fr/storie/IERI/Myth_islams_contri... 2) Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World.
  - erenyeager 4y ago
    Two-way can come in the sense as the main thing conquests spread was dominance of Islamic religion in a region, even if conversions didn’t not occur until later. The conquest of the Sassanian Empire for example would later lead to things like the prolific grammarian of Arabic Sibawayh, a Muslim of descent from what is now Iran. While he was not even from Arabic nor a native speaker of Arabic, he became one of the best Arabic grammarians in his quest for Islamic knowledge. Without the expansion of the Islamic nations, we would not expect to see this. Ultimately religion became a uniting force among disparate peoples, binding them into one Muslim nation.
    - rramadass 4y ago
      Islamic religion had become a uniting force only by "spreading by the sword" since in the original form as conceived by the Arabs it was merely a simplistic dogma tuned to their needs, times and culture. It was the conquered cultures which brought in a huge Knowledge Base into it which was then sold under the Islamic/Arabic banner. But because of the inherent intolerant nature of Islam (as the linked article in my previous comment points out about the rejection of Mutazilism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazilism) Islam inevitably declined into the mess that it is today. Contrast it against the spread, stability and popularity of Buddhism and you can see the stark difference. The latter is constructive while the former is destructive, the latter harmoniously marries Native culture to Religion (eg. Buddhism in Sri Lanka vs. China vs. Japan etc.) while the former is consumed by hatred, infighting and identity crisis.
      - erenyeager 4y ago
        You are sorely wrong and ignorant as to the topics you discuss. To wallow in bias is to stay lost. Conversions to Islam under Islamic empires like Umayyads and Abbasids did not in general occur by the “sword”. You can look up the historical demographics, it took a long time for some areas like the Levant and even Egypt for a majority of the population to convert. Conversions occurred for a variety of reasons, but being force by the sword is definitely not a major factor. Even still today many places retained their minority religion populations. As for blend of culture and religion, you can easily say same for Islamic cultures which harmonized with cultures as widely as Indonesia to West and South Asian under its fold. As for mutazilism, that has nothing to do with the topic, and the mutazilites themselves had people killed for not following their beliefs when they influenced the ruler, so their downfall was only by what they perpetuated. Next you sell Buddhism as perfect at peace, yet there is well known infighting between various branches in Buddhism. Not to mention it does not end ethnic strife (see the genocide of Rohingya in Burma). Be honest not dogmatic.
29athrowaway 4y ago
The Islamic world before and after the Mongol invasion are completely different. Many of the polymaths and philosophers of the Islamic Golden Age were Persian.