AHC: Arabian Science Continues
- Thread starter modelcitizen
- Start date
Glad to know you where lied to rather than came up with the lies yourself atleast.
Dragos Cel Mare
Banned
I'd rather he not lie at all, methinks.
Edit: And for the record, Islam wasn't afraid to improve upon Greco-Roman, Persian, and Indian science.
Last edited:
Looking beyond the last few decades, the Patriarchal nature of the Middle East vis-à-vis Europe becomes somewhat less obvious. Muslim women for most of the 19th century had more property rights than those of certain European counter parts (thanks to the Islamic guarantee for a wife's separate property). Rich Muslims in the Ottoman Empire were still interested in the education of their daughters, though the limited resources of the Ottoman Empire in general were more geared toward the education of their male populace. And legal equality has been slow to come to women in the West. Keep in mind that some Western countries did not grant women the right to vote until the 1970's.
The problem with Matteo's views, and those like him, is one of Occidentalism as much as Orientalism. Though the stereotypes of the West tend to be much more positive in nature.
The problem with Matteo's views, and those like him, is one of Occidentalism as much as Orientalism. Though the stereotypes of the West tend to be much more positive in nature.
Dragos Cel Mare
Banned
Oh, yes. Sorry to sound condescending, but people are fond of projecting the present back into the past, especially of it concerns Islam and Muslims. Anyway, I'm leaving this thread; arguments like this give me a bad taste in my mouth.
I could be wrong about this, but wasn't Arabian/Persian/Islamic society already growing more conservative and less friendly to a rational or empirical perspective before the 13th century? I'm not saying that there is anything inherently anti-scientific about Islam, but I wonder if a POD earlier than the time of the Mongols or perhaps even earlier than the start of the crusades would be necessary.
This isn't my area, though, so I could easily be wrong.
This isn't my area, though, so I could easily be wrong.
From what I´ve read thats exactly so. By the early 11th century the middle east is already far into stagnation. Trying to keep the dynamism in the middle east from 8th and 9th century by butterflying the fall of Baghdad strikes me as trying to save the Byzantines by avoiding the fall of Constantinople.
I wouldn't go that far. There's still life in the Islamic world, as opposed to how by 1453 the Byzantines pretty much own just Constantinople and half the Peloponnese.
But an earlier POD would be useful if you want to have it "continued" instead of merely "revived".
Although as something relevant: Muslim cannons and gunpowder emerge around this period (mid-late 13th century). That's hardly an entirely stagnant society. Even if that's seeing/capturing Mongol (well, Chinese, but from the Mongol invasion) examples and not independent research, that's still something new.
If the mongols focused on the Eastern realms and/or by example if the Sultan of Khawazrem(?) controlled things and was wise... Maybe the modern era history of Islam would be a bit different, who know... It's a few POD at least.
Oh ! I appreciate your courtesy. It may be wasteful (to remain polite, because I could also Samy about not casting pearls ...), but I can mention Sylvain Gouguenheim, and a much longer list! But given the fact you are sticking to the usual politically correct clichés without even citing your sources, I won't.
It seems to me that most of the time, when people use the world "politically correct", they are trying to label their opponent as having an argument based in positive emotion about the subject and a desire not to offend. It is a poor argument that does nothing to contradict the arguments of an opponent.
Your argument so far in the thread has consisted of a few sweeping generalizations, that seem to dismissive of the Arabs in a way that Bernard Lewis could not even imagine, based on a second rate scholar. As for good sources on the Early Islamic period, "A History of the Arab Peoples" by Albert Hourani is a very good starting point, which also gives an overview of later Arab history as well.
If you can find a caricature in my post, I'd be very happy for you to point it out. Gouguenheim is a second class scholar in the sense that he is not a usual reference for people in Middle Eastern history. Maybe it is my own ignorance of the French historiographical tradition that is limiting me there.
I am not sure what you are referring to me having enough of here. I have simply pointed out errors in your argument that you have responded to by accusing me of "following dogma". If you are going to accuse me of that, at least have the decency to go towards proving it.
It's not that he believes in "dogmas", he actually is a Muslim (wait was that you or someone else?) and more importantly the guy does know his shot on early Islamic culture.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
People are responding calmly and citing sources at you. The proper response to that is not to continue with your sweeping generalizations and to belittle them. Grow up and debate civilly.