Major Reforms in the Medieval Islamic Empires

Greetings all,

How would you get major religious and social reforms in the Medieval Islamic Empires around the time of the Umayyad Dynasty, would be the theme of this thread. The reforms should be such that it would be widespread, lead to new religious movements for flexibility within Islam, gradual relaxation of rigid social norms, Syncretizing other religions like Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Paganism, Hinduism, Tengrism and Judaism, accelerated Scientific development and open in Outlook towards other Empires and people.

Later, when the Turks convert, they should convert to this version of religion or the umbrella of religions. Hence, you can calculate the effects on the Indian Empires, the Byzantine Anatolia and the Balkans.

This would also be in a position to have a say in how religions of India and Europe develop, too.
 
Why exactly would they reform? What pressure is there to do it?

While I am not an expert on Islamic history, the Umayyad dynasty and the following Abbassids are widely known in history as the height of the Islamic Golden Age, a flowering of culture and science. Islamic sages were the ones who preserved manuscripts and works from the Classical era (and indeed, brought them to Europe in many cases). The House of Wisdom in Baghdad could be compared to a proto-university. Some other posters can fill in on the complex reasons of the decline of the Islamic Golden Age (I mean, besides the Mongols...), but there is no denying it happened. From Constantinople to Salamanca, Europeans were fascinated with the cultural and technical achievements of the Islamic World.

As for tolerance, IIRC, Christian minorities and Jews actually had more liberties than in Catholic Europe, despite things such as the Jiyza tax, mostly because the Arab empires had a much more developed, autonomous urban culture and they could fill roles as traders and craftsmen, while in Europe they were forced into ghettoes or forcibly converted. I am not saying it was a period of absolute religious tolerance -the Zoroastrians, for example, were heavily persecuted-, since that concept is closer to our modern times, but in comparison to our perception of the Middle Ages, it was a rather tolerant deal. This is only what I remember from some off-hand readings, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

'Islamic syncretism' is sort of a contradiction of terms. Islam, even more than even Christianity and Judaism, is based on monotheism and the oneness of God. It is difficult to syncretize that. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, as certain Sufi and Shi'a currents attest, and the Islamic dynasties in India had to adapt to their Hindu subjects, for example. But I don't think there is an easy way to syncretize Islam. There is Baha'i, but that is a very modern movement.

As for 'rigid social norms' I am not sure how rigid they were compared to other contemporary cultures, honestly. Most cultures at the time didn't have many rights for women or minorities, let alone a concept of universal human rights. You'll have to be more especific.

If you want some sort of Islamic French Revolution, you will need to put into place the factors that led towards it. And I don't think they were present at the time you mention.
 
As for 'rigid social norms' I am not sure how rigid they were compared to other contemporary cultures, honestly. Most cultures at the time didn't have many rights for women or minorities, let alone a concept of universal human rights. You'll have to be more especific.
There seemed to be a restriction on types of Art and Non-Muslims becoming more influential. Though it might have been in Europe, it seems to a lesser degree. Religion seems more Centralized than in Europe. While European "Holy wars" seem more like a revenge or a grudge(I'm not justifying it), Islamic Empires have launched major Holy wars, totally unprovoked. Persecution of Zoroastrians and Pagans is the thing we know very well. Later Islamic Empires started persecuting other religions like Christianity and Hinduism as well. You see how Tengrism and Buddhism are totally extinct in particular regions?

While Europe has many Jews and had Pagans upto late 6th Century or more in Byzantium and upto 16th Century in the Baltic states.

Several Centres of Learning appear to have been destroyed in the Iran, Afghanistan and India. Europe and other Empires seem to have used the knowledge they gathered during expansion.

Also, women couldn't enjoy as much power and freedom as in Europe or other places.
While I am not an expert on Islamic history, the Umayyad dynasty and the following Abbassids are widely known in history as the height of the Islamic Golden Age, a flowering of culture and science. Islamic sages were the ones who preserved manuscripts and works from the Classical era (and indeed, brought them to Europe in many cases). The House of Wisdom in Baghdad could be compared to a proto-university. Some other posters can fill in on the complex reasons of the decline of the Islamic Golden Age (I mean, besides the Mongols...), but there is no denying it happened. From Constantinople to Salamanca, Europeans were fascinated with the cultural and technical achievements of the Islamic World.
They had. But they didn't make use of them to full potential and later Islamic Empires didn't even live up to them and didn't even try to balance Science and Religion in a constructive way. In Europe, Renaissance and the revival of Sciences happened so quickly and wasn't dead in the first place(Byzantium was carrying it and many Centres of learning existed in Europe too).
 
'Islamic syncretism' is sort of a contradiction of terms. Islam, even more than even Christianity and Judaism, is based on monotheism and the oneness of God. It is difficult to syncretize that. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, as certain Sufi and Shi'a currents attest, and the Islamic dynasties in India had to adapt to their Hindu subjects, for example. But I don't think there is an easy way to syncretize Islam.
The is that, its pretty easy to fall into heresy pit of hell, resulting a mess that make China's 8 prince era look like a cakewalk.
But I don't think there is an easy way to syncretize Islam. There is Baha'i, but that is a very modern movement.
Baha'i is, heresy i would say. Its no longer considered as Islam as it had became an entire new religion.
As for tolerance, IIRC, Christian minorities and Jews actually had more liberties than in Catholic Europe, despite things such as the Jiyza tax,
Jizya is a military service excemption tax, with religion flavour. Considered the the state of warfare and medical knowledge for battle wound, its a pretty good deal for non-muslim. *shrug*
Maybe a challenge to the highly Centralized religious Authority and the Sharia law? And also a challenge to the right social norms?
...........
.........
........
Wut?:neutral:

That would require the Ulema to be memetic evolll Catholic, which pretty cringey to be be honest.

Because somehow people just didnt whip them and replace it with
 
Threats like this show how little people know about islam,even myself but this is so cliche at times
 
Threats like this show how little people know about islam,even myself but this is so cliche at times
Ah! I see.....:hushedface:

Basicaly, this thread is one of the many thread that equivelant of AH-version of /r/ex-islam...*sarcasm*

Now, excuse me while i tried to forgot this before i [redacted].

*proceed drink brain bleach*
 
Last edited:
The Medieval Islamic empires, while definitely not perfect by any stretch, were still better than the European catholic states who spent most of the Medieval era killing each other or minorities within their borders. The whole OP reads extremely ill-informed. My advice would be to do some more research on your own. Just... there's so many wrong things in the OP and followup things. There were tons of minorities in the middle east, including even pre-semitic inhabitants. Just... my advice would be to read some of John7755's amazing posts and to do some more research on your own. I don't think you're being intentionally islamophobic because what you're talking about are standard talking points about Islam said in many parts of the Southeast and America in general. Any kind of protracted research will inevitably prove it wrong.
 
Describing the Muslim holy wars as unprovoked while the crusades are a grudge and an act of vengeance, is pretty ahistorical. The Baltic crusades and the religious violence and destruction they caused were fairly unprovoked.

it seems a bit ridiculous to claim that a Frankish invasion of the holy land, more than 300 years after it’s initial conquest by Muslims as revenge.

All the great Christian (and non Christian for that matter) empires have conquered swathes of territory “unprovoked” so it’s pretty ridiculous to hold Muslims to a different standard
 
Top