Max Sinister
Banned
Interesting. The German WP article about Mecca doesn't mention the Qarmatians and their raid at all! Really good post.
I hold the theory of perpetual Islamic Golden Age per say. Or simply, there was no period in the Abbasid where Islam was some grand beacon as compared to following periods. It is my view that Islam remained intellectually powerful and sophisticated afterwards and infact, most periods following the Abbasid where far more innovative than the Abbasids. Especially when it comes to intellectual or artistic growth that does not lead to negative side effects. We see the effect of the Abbasid throne had on Iraq, that of destruction due to the scientific racism and intolerance of a massively diverse area. Abbasid powers mismanaged what the Umayyads built by force of arms and that is no golden age.
Still a bit unclear... which innovations are you talking about? Where can I read more about this?
World systems theory was explicitly developed by anti-western left wing academics as a battering bludgeon of guilt and shame to beat the west over the head with.
Interesting. The German WP article about Mecca doesn't mention the Qarmatians and their raid at all! Really good post.
Odd. Some of the better western writers on Islamic history were German.
What kind of innovations? I mean, if they were something like, say, the development of Impressionism in Western art, I wouldn't really classify that as an "innovation," just a change in fashion. To me, an innovation in a field seems like it needs to materially change some aspect of that field so that it is possible to do things that were not previously possible in that field. For example, the development of oil paints would classify since it allowed artists to do things that hadn't been possible before.Then In this period following the Abbasid throne had innovations in social etiquette, dress and art.
What kind of innovations? I mean, if they were something like, say, the development of Impressionism in Western art, I wouldn't really classify that as an "innovation," just a change in fashion. To me, an innovation in a field seems like it needs to materially change some aspect of that field so that it is possible to do things that were not previously possible in that field. For example, the development of oil paints would classify since it allowed artists to do things that hadn't been possible before.
I find it hard to classify some group as "innovating" if all they're doing is inventing a lot of new fashions, even if they're doing it rapidly...
Well an innovation is just something new, it doesn't have to be technological.What kind of innovations? I mean, if they were something like, say, the development of Impressionism in Western art, I wouldn't really classify that as an "innovation," just a change in fashion. To me, an innovation in a field seems like it needs to materially change some aspect of that field so that it is possible to do things that were not previously possible in that field. For example, the development of oil paints would classify since it allowed artists to do things that hadn't been possible before.
I find it hard to classify some group as "innovating" if all they're doing is inventing a lot of new fashions, even if they're doing it rapidly...
I disagree. Not everything new is an innovation; it has to have some wider impact or enabling power to be worthy of the term, or else it becomes meaningless. That does not mean that innovations have to be technological in the slightest; for example, algebra and calculus were great mathematical innovations, yet neither could meaningfully be defined as a "technological" innovation, the same as most innovations in mathematics. It is just typically easier to think of technologies which enabled new things to be done than ideas or concepts.Well an innovation is just something new, it doesn't have to be technological.
Well mathematical innovations would fit into "scientific and technological innovations", which is the sense most used today.I disagree. Not everything new is an innovation; it has to have some wider impact or enabling power to be worthy of the term, or else it becomes meaningless. That does not mean that innovations have to be technological in the slightest; for example, algebra and calculus were great mathematical innovations, yet neither could meaningfully be defined as a "technological" innovation, the same as most innovations in mathematics. It is just typically easier to think of technologies which enabled new things to be done than ideas or concepts.
Well, frankly they're completely and utterly wrong in using the word that way. Any cultural change is a change, nothing more, nothing less. It may be an innovation if it enables something new to be done that couldn't be done before; the idea of codifying laws, for example, was surely an innovation, in that it made it much easier to reference laws for any and every purpose (this is one reason why I specifically did not question whether post-Abbasid legal innovations were innovations). But a change needn't be an innovation, and in very many cases makes little difference to anyone's life. For example, the shift from ruffs to cravats to ties as the neckwear of choice for men didn't at all affect the larger point that men were expected to wear something around their neck, even if what exactly that something was changed over time.But in reference to the ancient world, in archaeology and anthropology, any cultural change can be seen as an innovation. This is a cultural innovation, and is often a recombination of old elements already present in some form.
I never said that couldn't be an innovation. Indeed, most "new" things are really repackagings of old things with implications previously neglected worked out or similar refinements. The point is that they have to do something more than just be new, whether in content or combination, to be a real innovation.There are also market innovations, which don't necessarily require something absolutely new. Market innovations can be a recombination of old things into a "new" product with higher demand. The change can even be purely marketing/packaging/branding and does not strictly require modifying the contents of the product.
Well historically, the benefit of an innovation, whether it is scientific, technological, cultural, legal, or any other type, is not always immediately clear. It may take months, years, even centuries to propagate, and its benefits may take even longer. It may even have disadvantages that accumulate over time.Well, frankly they're completely and utterly wrong in using the word that way. Any cultural change is a change, nothing more, nothing less. It may be an innovation if it enables something new to be done that couldn't be done before; the idea of codifying laws, for example, was surely an innovation, in that it made it much easier to reference laws for any and every purpose (this is one reason why I specifically did not question whether post-Abbasid legal innovations were innovations). But a change needn't be an innovation, and in very many cases makes little difference to anyone's life. For example, the shift from ruffs to cravats to ties as the neckwear of choice for men didn't at all affect the larger point that men were expected to wear something around their neck, even if what exactly that something was changed over time.
I find the process of non-material innovations very interesting, actually, since there often seems to be no real reason why certain ideas--federalism, for instance--were had at some times and not others. But the whole subject is cheapened if any change whatsoever is termed an "innovation".
In spirit, I agree. It does seem to cheapen the definition of innovation. But that's why there are separate terms for scientific innovation, technological innovation, market innovation, etc. Ultimately any change that affects society is innovation.But the whole subject is cheapened if any change whatsoever is termed an "innovation".
Well, sure. That just means that you can't judge an innovation immediately, but only with the long sight of history. But since we're discussing innovations in post-Abbasid Islam, most of which took place hundreds of years ago...Well historically, the benefit of an innovation, whether it is scientific, technological, cultural, legal, or any other type, is not always immediately clear. It may take months, years, even centuries to propagate, and its benefits may take even longer. It may even have disadvantages that accumulate over time.
I'm not saying they're wrong to think the fancy pictures are better, I'm saying that putting fancy pictures on a pot is not in of itself innovation. It's a fundamentally arbitrary decision by people now that fancy pictures are good, which people in the past didn't agree with and people in the future probably won't agree with either (see the periodic shifts between minimalism and decoratism in Western art; rococo versus neoclassicism, for instance). If arbitrary decisions between a set of equally good possibilities count as innovation, then the term is completely meaningless. Now, if there was some development involved that allowed fancy pictures when that was previously impossible, that would be innovation. But otherwise, no.If some aspect is adopted as a replacement for a previous aspect, voluntarily, then the people who adopted it found it better than what they had previously. If Ancient Greeks in the 8th century BC found fancy Assyrian imagery on pottery to be more appealing than what they had painted on their pottery in the 9th century BC, who is to say they were wrong? If everyone back then thought it was a qualitative improvement, because they chose to use those aspects over others, why would it not be a cultural innovation?
I didn't say that religious changes could not be innovations. Indeed, I thought about citing some as examples of innovation; the development of monotheism, for instance. But there's a difference between an innovation that significantly changes religious feeling and thought and what might as well be a change in fashion, where one god becomes more popular than another god without any substantive changes to theology, for instance. The reasons for this may be interesting, they may reflect major shifts in the world outside of religion, but they are not innovation.And if there are cultural innovations and legal innovations, why would religious changes not be innovations? Culture and law are very heavily tied with religion.
I think it's pretty clear that I don't think innovations need to be material to be innovations. They just have to be significant. It's the significance I insist on.Also technological innovations do not have to be material to have very real reasons as to why they are adopted. For example, any innovation in software, of which there have been many, increasing productivity or filling a new demand or creating a new market. Though I guess it depends on how you define material.
Well I don't know much specifically about post-Abbasid "innovations in social etiquette, dress, and art" so I will leave it to @John7755 يوحنا to argue or not argue that point.Remember, the whole reason this discussion got started was because John said that the post-Abassid Muslim world had "innovations in social etiquette, dress, and art". To my eyes, these seem like exactly the kind of fields which are fundamentally about taste, and taste is subjective and arbitrary, so that it's very difficult to have real innovations--things that fundamentally change the nature of these fields. Any changes tend to themselves go out of fashion shortly afterwards, then be revived by later generations albeit sometimes disguised. Occasionally you do get something that sticks, but often not to anyone's particular joy (who really likes wearing ties?). So I wondered what they were, to judge for myself whether they were innovations or just changes in fashion.
I would call the Orientalization a cultural innovation which was accompanied by cultural changes that were not in of themselves innovations. Only taken as a whole were there innovative changes to Greek culture. I suppose this, itself, is a matter of taste, though, and I can see your point.My point was that similar subjective changes could be significant, including cultural and religious innovations. The 8th century Greek adoption of Assyrian imagery was an aspect of the Orientalizing period, which was a very foundational period for ancient Greek culture as it transitioned from the Greek Dark Ages into the Archaic Age into the Classical period. Demand for eastern goods led to increased trade, new raw materials, and very importantly the Phoenician alphabet was transmitted to the Greeks leading to the creation of the Greek alphabet.
If subjective cultural/religious changes are caused by, accompanied with, and lead to changes in society, it makes sense to call them cultural innovations, IMO.
In at least the case of Islam the introduction of monotheism came in parallel with a vast array of other religious and social changes that massively affected Arabic culture, and eventually the whole of the MENA region, many of which stemmed directly from the introduction of monotheism, at least according to what I recall. That qualifies as an innovation, in my mind. I am less knowledgable about the introduction of monotheism in Judaism or Christianity, so I'll forebear from discussing them, and I would welcome corrections on the Islam part as well.To the monotheism example--from historical instead of religious perspective, is that not technically subjective in the same way that changes in taste are?
Ah, that was just what I was looking for. From your earlier description, it honestly sounded like the innovations you were discussing were things along the line of, say, shaking hands with people when you're introduced instead of bowing to them. This might reflect larger changes to society, but it isn't really particularly impressive or innovative. I figured that you probably didn't intend to be read that way, so I was trying to see what you were thinking about and explaining what I thought would count as innovative and why your examples seemed a tad bit suspicious to justify my inquiry. I agree that what you mention do seem to include major innovations in multiple fields, as well as very positive or significant changes that might fall short of being innovations.I do not mean changes in art, but the creation of new art forms, more stories, more poetry, collection of Pre-Islamic Arab stories, categorizing Arab lineages, insignia, the major schools of fiqh, New armor styles, economic innovations; most importantly proto free market ideas which went against the previously dominant Islamic models, concepts of exceptions in Islamic law or maslihah, the finalization of pre modern Islamic banking, codification of chess, codification of what it means to be an Islamic soldier, historic works that centered around secular ideas as opposed to religious ones, better architecture, increased travel across the Islamic world, better knowledge of other religions, better knowledge of Europe, firearms, military strategy, etc, etc....
These are not subjective.
Mind you, during the Abbasid period, no works of art outside of religious works existed. Whereas, by the time of the 1400s, we see the innovation of the famous Persian miniature inherited from Byzantium and the creation of extravagant Qurans in the fashion of Christian manuscripts.
This also does not even include the beginnings of the codification of modern Twelver Shi'ism and Ism'ailism and other Shi'i groups. Writings and literature that allowed a plethora of new Shi'i ideas due to the now risen and dominate Shi'i state of the Safavids. One need only look at debates between Shi'i of modern times of subjects to see the amount of influence the Safavid had on modern Islamic thought.
Not to mention, the first Islamic state that claimed the caliphate that lasted in a united state for more than 300 years (Ottomans).
Well, the Greek Orientalizing period is a retrospective name for a period of time (like "The Dark Ages" or "The Enlightenment"), rather than an innovation.I would call the Orientalization a cultural innovation which was accompanied by cultural changes that were not in of themselves innovations. Only taken as a whole were there innovative changes to Greek culture. I suppose this, itself, is a matter of taste, though, and I can see your point.
Ah, sorry, I'm not really familiar with the history. What I meant was that I would probably take some of the changes at that time to also be innovations, and possibly some group of those changes together, but not necessarily every individual change despite being associated with each other. The same is true for the changes involved in the Enlightenment; some of them were innovative, some of them were not.Well, the Greek Orientalizing period is a retrospective name for a period of time (like "The Dark Ages" or "The Enlightenment"), rather than an innovation.