As I said not to the same extent. Though I'd be happy to be corrected by those more theologically inclined.
Islamic Enlightenment ?
- Thread starter Dude_guy
- Start date
Vuu
Banned
Splice off Islam from state early on. Any sort of scientific discovery which could endanger a part of the quran would result in the said discoverer would be marked as an apostate and executed, or simply ignored and shut down if nonmuslim. Such extremism made people disinterested in scientific method beyond recreating already discovered tech
Similar things happened in europe too, but the vaguer descriptions in the bible probably helped stop that
Similar things happened in europe too, but the vaguer descriptions in the bible probably helped stop that
It's a really big topic which I don't think I'd be adequately able to summarize in a dissertation length write up let alone a single post, but here's a wiki article which serves as a decent primer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_thesis
-The Ottomans and other Sunni Caliphates oppressed any schisms from sunni islam, this and the tying of church to state prevented scientific advancements.
-The "Islamic golden age" occurred under arab rule, most of the middle east hates arabs, the only arabic regions of the middle east are the fertile crescent (mesopotamia + levant), Arabian Peninsula, and North Africa.
-North Africa never acquired any substantial wealth, population, or power to boost itself to any position of "creating an enlightenment",
-The Fertile Crescent still to this day is a major hotspot for wars and it constantly attacked from outside influencers from the north (as far as russia), the east (mostly persia), the South (Arabs), the North (Byzantines, later Turks), and the West, (Minorities + Crusaders + Other Europeans etc.).
-The Arabian Peninsula is mostly desert with poorly populated regions, this region developed much after most of the middle east had formed their first nations/empires.
And my final point, Most of these "Renaissance (Rebirth) of Islamic Ideas, aren't really islamic ideas, a great chunk of these ideas came from the Romans, Persians, and Indians which the Arabs claimed as theirs, If you name just about anything from the "Islamic Golden Age" there is a 90% chance it is a rip off from the Byzantines, Sassanids, or Northern Indians, or even the Southern ones too.
These are just my 2 cents, I haven't really scratched the surface either.
-The "Islamic golden age" occurred under arab rule, most of the middle east hates arabs, the only arabic regions of the middle east are the fertile crescent (mesopotamia + levant), Arabian Peninsula, and North Africa.
-North Africa never acquired any substantial wealth, population, or power to boost itself to any position of "creating an enlightenment",
-The Fertile Crescent still to this day is a major hotspot for wars and it constantly attacked from outside influencers from the north (as far as russia), the east (mostly persia), the South (Arabs), the North (Byzantines, later Turks), and the West, (Minorities + Crusaders + Other Europeans etc.).
-The Arabian Peninsula is mostly desert with poorly populated regions, this region developed much after most of the middle east had formed their first nations/empires.
And my final point, Most of these "Renaissance (Rebirth) of Islamic Ideas, aren't really islamic ideas, a great chunk of these ideas came from the Romans, Persians, and Indians which the Arabs claimed as theirs, If you name just about anything from the "Islamic Golden Age" there is a 90% chance it is a rip off from the Byzantines, Sassanids, or Northern Indians, or even the Southern ones too.
These are just my 2 cents, I haven't really scratched the surface either.
Your definition of "the only arabic regions of the middle east" includes all of the Middle East sans Iran, Cyprus, and Turkey...
Admittedly, it could be mostly for the Islamic West, I know I've tendency to generalize some aspects from the region : but at least in Maghrib and Ifriqiya, and from what I understood partially the case in Andalus and Misr, differenciation between schools was as much a matter of identity than content, and some influences on Maghrib's malikism were attributed by Abdallah Laroui to sh'ia teachings. An influence that was probably not that assumed, I agree.
Yea I know, lol.
But even then only egypt is really "arabic" in North Africa, Not to mention the fertile crescent is still packed with Kurds, Assyrians, Jews, Lebanese Christians, Arabic Christians, and even some Persians. So technically what I mean is Arabian Peninsula + Egypt + the inner part of the Fertile Crescent, which is 99% desert with abysmal population.
If by packed you mean "contains some minority communities of ...", also two of the groups you mentioned are Arabs.
How are you even defining Arabs? because if it's by language then I think you're in for a shock.
Also, I wouldn't call Egypt underpopulated, either, then or now.
And Arab Christians are, shock-horror, Arab! Heck, a lot of them were responsible OTL for Arab nationalism since it was an identity they did share with their Muslim neighbors.
And Arab Christians are, shock-horror, Arab! Heck, a lot of them were responsible OTL for Arab nationalism since it was an identity they did share with their Muslim neighbors.
I'm surprised at how unknowledgeable people are on this site are.
- al-Maarri, an Arab atheist who lived in Baghdad, dying at ripe age of 83 of natural causes.
- Maimonides, a Jewish polymath who became influential even among Muslims.
- Averroes, an Andalusian philosopher who held atypical views, eventually becoming the Chief Judge of Cordoba.
Last edited:
This "mongol destroyed Islamic golden age" myth needs to go, Baghdad was declining in size well before the Mongols dealt the last big blow, also we have no evidence of them killing "90% of the population".
Baghdad in 1258 was still larger than every European city during the Renaissance, and it still had massive potential as a center of learning. In regards to Persia, even if the percentage does not reach 90%, it cannot be denied that the Mongols destroyed massive tracts of Persia, depopulating the area, and in general causing havoc. This is all in addition to the Black Death (decimating 30% of the population), and then Timur's conquests (killing 17 million people), which both passed through in quick succession.
Last edited:
That definitely did a lot of damage, but I think the gap between Europe and the Middle East was narrowing before then. Certainly by the mid 1100s Europe was home to its own vibrant and growing scholastic scene.
You speak of the size of Baghdad as a positive. It may not have been. It can be argued that it is not, as I would. Further, the population of the French kingdom in its totality was certainly far more populous in areas of greater importance, that being rural areas that could both producer levies for war and sustainable crop production, than any single part of the Islamic world, including Egypt.
If you look at the Abbasid state and its development, one often comes to the realization, that Baghdad was a true hinderance. The massive size it carried often seemed alienate the rulers from the ruled and as a result the Abbasid regressed and resorted to outright tyranny during the Mihna, wherein the Abbasid oppressed its primary constituents on behalf of a small isolated intelligentsia in Baghdad.
Technically, the Islamic Golden age from the 8th century to the 14th century, was their Englightenment and Renaissance, but I digress
Differences in madhab (schools of jurisprudence) are not the same as differences in aqeedah (status of the soul). Madhab certainly were more of a greater division in say the XVII or later than they were in 800, as most of these opinions on Madhab were not necessarily formulated in such strong terms. At the time for instance, tawheed ar-Raboobiyyah was not necessarily formed nor was many distinctions in jurisprudence. However, distinctions of grave consequence existed already between the sects deriving from the religion held by Muhammad.
The difference though between say, Hanbali and Maliki madhab is one of diverging opinions. For instance, most Hanbali say that taxation of any kind on an individual is a great sin. A Maliki may say that this taxation on individuals (income tax) is allowed if the culture in question has some sort of innate nature toward this form of tax or that it is part of their culture. The difference of Shi'a and Sunni of the time was one of deep seated aqeedah, that is a separate faith.
I am not sure as to the situation of the Maghrib or Iberia. However, was it not the case that these areas were known to be hotbeds of subversive sects and entities that restricted expansion of many of the Sunni states in the region? I believe that this is the case.
samcster94
Banned
Exactly, that makes perfect sense. Even in the early Ottoman Empire, it was much better to be a Jew in Istanbul than it was to be one in Madrid.
Source on that? As far as I know Baghdad in 1250 was barely bigger than Paris, and Italian cities during this time were quite big and there were multiple number of them.
Max Sinister
Banned
Yes, it might be that Baghdad already declined before the Mongols. Keyword: Ecological crisis.