Why is it ignorance? You asked "is it possible for the Islamic World to resume the illumination that it had before and that the European sphere had just begun with a POST-renaissance pod?". The answer is yes the Ottomans could in the 19th century.
Yes I know it's uninspired. In the previous few weeks I still brought in up in threads on this board twice to people that didn't know. How am I supposed to know you didn't want it if you didn't mention that you didn't?
The agriculture was one example. I specifically said so just to prevent people saying that I was citing a singular factor! Look:
This is in response to John giving Capitalism as a way for the Islamic World to keep pace. I mean I specifically added the "one" part in because apparently people don't get that an example is an example when you call it an example. This happened before. What am I supposed to say?
I never argued against the bolded part of your quote so I'm not sure why you're saying it? Doesn't the fact that I mentioned them degenerating and improving imply that they were better and worse respectively? The point is that it's a major factor and one that introducing Capitalism doesn't effect. Which still stands.
I would both disagree that the examples you listed are main factors and that plausible POD's could be created for them. My belief is that on a macro scale, human choice doesn't really matter. Even when ATL states look really strange to our eyes, they still play out macrohistorical trends. Conventional POD's can't really change that.
@John7755 يوحنا : I shall respond to your post when I get the time within this week. A bit pressed for time right now to give a proper response.
The Ottomans for reasons equal to that of the Abbasid were too late, at this point there is no process of reforming that can save them from Russia with their population base and relative levels of market activity. Japan on the other hand which succeeded, had going for itself an isolated yet dense and highly educated populace able to make leaps and bounds economically. The Ottomans, on the other hand are the progeny of Islam, a massive state with its unifying power being massive statist intrusion which moves quite slow in terms of creating economic opportunity. They based their entire state originally from the same premise, massive state entity, enriching capital territory instead of allowing a decentralized zone to uplift equally the necessary means to create bases and centers for taxation. Further it is too late, simple industrialization this early is meaningless, as the Qing and subsequent Chinese dynasties and oddly the Ottomans discovered. The mode you are proposing happened in otl, it just had no effect, the Ottomans and the Arab world by this point was doomed to be subject to Russia and then France & Britain. Yes, the Ottomans could've done better, but at this point they are finished. Just look at how heavily the Ottomans relied on Europe for its real power, this is indicative of the weakness created in the Arab world, a hollow shell. What I am proposing is through changing the economic and social hegemony of the early Islamic period, this can be reversed to a more equitable position.
In relation to food and colonialism, it is clear through my reading that it was not the initially meagre gains from the new world that created this system which again Europe became the hegemony. As I said, it is the creation of the mind set which is; Capital is the main and ultimate moving factor in any and every society. This ideal would lead to eventual enlightenment and secularism which then produced the greatest technological growth in human history, the Arab skipped this development due to its original history as I have outlined. All I propose, is a change in Islamic society from its otl economic history to one of more similar nature to either Japan or Europe, which either will stay within close range to Europe (think Russia) or easily transition like Japan, surely this isn't difficult to understand.
However, I will await your full response before I give any more heavy arguments on colonialism vs the development of capitalism (as in the system by which is the opposite of mutual aid or theocentrism, the ideal of the accumulation of capital as the sole societal goal).