He hasn't refuted anything, he's just tried to show that Islam was a fertile place for inventiveness, I just pointed out that most of the claims were taken from elsewhere and or not developed any further, this is what lead to the stagnation of Islamic society.
As for the west setting aside religion, this came about when the monolithic power block of the Roman Catholic church was broken by Luthers thesis. It's not that the thesis was important in and of itself, but, that it gave impetus to many to break away and set up power structures of their own. A lot of realms broke up not for religious reasons (though that was the excuse) but to enhance the power of the local princes from their overlords. Once this breakup occurred you had the competition neccesary to force further developements. Further developements require cash to fund them. You then get the rise of a mercantile class who eventually end up owning the nobles. The mercantile class usually look for better, quicker and cheaper means to do things so as to maximise their profits. This in the end enabled western investment in factories, exploration and progress.
I realise its not quite as simple as I make it out to be, but unless a society goes through occasional turmoil where the established order is forced to innovate or be removed then all you get is stagnation. This is particularly true of societies with monolithic religions who's sole purpose (in my eyes) is the perpetuation of the monolithic religions structures.
The west had its Luther, Islam did not, it remains pretty much the way it ended after its expansionist phase.
No, that's quite accurate. Many of the metaphors of the Qur'an are economic in nature, and Islamic culture has always thrived in the city rather than the countryside. The exception which proves the rule is the bedouin, who are famously nomadic and pastoral rather than sedentary and agricultural.One suggestion I read mentioned a point about the Koran. That Mohammed being a trader in earlier life, the book has numerous mentions of merchants and how they relate to Islam. On the other hand there is only one reference to farmers and that is about them paying taxes. The author of this is a writer who I have seen a couple of references before and seems to have a lot of experience on the ME and its history. Therefore presuming its accurate, unless anyone can tell me otherwise.
You raise an interesting point. Most Islamic regimes were relatively laissez faire, concerned only with raising armies and levying taxes. Yet the great "hydraulic civilizations" of the ancient Middle East were basically planned economies. In order for agriculture to flourish in these regions, the rivers had to be carefully managed and large-scale infrastructure needed to be developed. Given the fragile nature of agriculture in the region, and the need for constant attention and careful planning, perhaps the economic practices of the Arabs did contribute and even hasten the decline in fertility. I don't know enough about Islamic agricultural practices to be sure.He was suggesting that although Islam quickly came to control the richest agricultural lands in the world this was to prove a flaw in its make-up. As in other societies, the military rulers often distributed land to their supporters. However because of this low priority to agriculture the rulers considered the agricultural regions as just sources of wealth to achieve their other long term aims. Resulting in a steady decline in what had once been the richest region of the world, to the much lower levels that it has been in for the last few centuries.
One suggestion I read mentioned a point about the Koran. That Mohammed being a trader in earlier life, the book has numerous mentions of merchants and how they relate to Islam. On the other hand there is only one reference to farmers and that is about them paying taxes. The author of this is a writer who I have seen a couple of references before and seems to have a lot of experience on the ME and its history. Therefore presuming its accurate, unless anyone can tell me otherwise.
He was suggesting that although Islam quickly came to control the richest agricultural lands in the world this was to prove a flaw in its make-up. As in other societies, the military rulers often distributed land to their supporters. However because of this low priority to agriculture the rulers considered the agricultural regions as just sources of wealth to achieve their other long term aims. Resulting in a steady decline in what had once been the richest region of the world, to the much lower levels that it has been in for the last few centuries.
Steve
As far as I know, the canals of Yemen had become silted up long before Islam showed up, resulting in the decline of the kingdoms of that region. The great dam of Marib broke in the 6th century, at least fifty years before the advent of Islam, but it had broken several times before and had been repaired each time. This time, it went unrepaired, as the people there no longer had the technology (or the desire) to repair it by this point. They languished under Sassanid rule for a few generations until the Muslims showed up.Good point. Also didn't two great hydrolic disasters (burst dams) dramatically reduce agricultural production along the Tigris and Euphrates and in Yeman around the time of Islam's advent?
OK here is my basic outline of the decline of Islam (with paralells to Western Europe).
869-879 The Zanj Rebellion in Basra province. Thereafter the caliphs declined in significance as Turk troops became the backbone of all Islamic armies in the east. Central government of the Umma collapses in the heartland. Western European paralell is the death of Marcus Aureillius and the rise of the military emperors.
1212 Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa. Andulsia is weakened beyond repair.
1258 The Mongol sack of Baghdad, similiar to the fall of Rome to the Ostrogoths. The center of culture and learning is lost. Intellectual life turns toward preservation, not innovation.
1529- Defeat before Vienna. The end of the Ottoman Ascendancy.
1571- The battle of Lepanto. Clear proof of European technological ascendant. Inflation caused by silver from Mexico had ravaged the Muslim empires of the west. The agarian society of the Muslims could not adapt.
1798 Napoleon's invasion of Egypt. Muslims can no longer defend their own land. Their independence is (until Ataturk in 1915 and 1921) dependant on assistance from Christian powers.
This is the date conventionally given as year zero of the modern Middle East. It was a significant year by any account, even though other Europeans (such as the Portuguese) had taken other parts of the Middle East in the 17th century.1798 Napoleon's invasion of Egypt. Muslims can no longer defend their own land. Their independence is (until Ataturk in 1915 and 1921) dependant on assistance from Christian powers.
As for the Mongols, I believe you are correct here, the west was fortunate that they had very little that the Mongols wanted whilst the rich cities of Mesopotamia did.
Religion in general, tends to put strictures on scientific developement. You tend to have the Nobility, and the Church, neither of which has any interest in upsetting the status quo. The Nobility is essentially a closed society shut off from the bulk of the population which leaves only the church itself as a route out for the best and brightest. These would have been wasted on religious study, translating, re-writing, worship, with precious little time for anything else. You might get the occasional tinkerer in either society, but nothing major. The one factor of that society I have left out is the Mercantile class, it is these who are freed up by the loosening of religious doctrine, it is these who tend to look for bigger, better, cheaper ways to do things.
You mentioned scholar al-Idrisi taking a globe to Sicily, tell me why there are no islamic settlements in America? Could it be that they couldn't make it there? Or could it be that they straddled the spice routes and saw no need to seek out a means to circumnavigate said globe.
You have still failed to come up with a satisfactory reason for the majority of centres of Islamism being 3rd world, despotic ran, socially barbaric societies, with the form of the religion being far more important than its meaning.
history of mathematics (oddly enough a hindu site not Baathist at all in any sense)
I also don't use single source internet sites, a quick scan gave me a history of innoculations (oddly enough not a Baathist site) History of carpets (again not a Baathist site) history of mathematics (oddly enough a hindu site not Baathist at all in any sense) I also studied the effects of islam on minority racial groupings and so have far more sympathy with assyrians, chaldeans, berbers, kurds, armenians, and anyone else involved in the arab expansionism that was the basis of Islam.
I was going to pull a Leo and do a "quote then rebuke" of all the ignorant shit Quiet Man claimed, but the sheer amount of stuff to address is daunting, so I'll just do the ones not already mentioned
Actually, the Mongols not invading Europe had absolutely nothing to do with whether the West had anything the Mongols wanted. The Great Khan at the time (Ogadei, Subotai, Batu? don't remember the name off the top of my head) had an army of 300,000 men ravaging much of Eastern Europe (see the battle of Liegnitz), and readying themselves to push west. The only reason they didn't follow through was because there was a succession crisis back in Mongolia over who would be the next Khan, forcing the generals to return to Mongolia. If this hadn't happened, it is quite probable the Mongols would have ravaged all of Eastern Europe, Germany, and France at the very least.
Gee, its almost like your taking a societal model highly specific to Western Europe and then forcing it onto a completely different society. Ever read a book called "Orientalism"?
Or maybe its due to the fact that a Muslim trying to discover the Americas would have had to either circumnavigate Africa, or fight his way through an inland sea with hostile people dogging him at every step, 2 things Europeans didnt have to when they sailed West. Also, you make it sound as if Muslim commerce consisted entirely of sitting on their asses while trade caravans rolled through, when in fact Muslims were actively creating new trade routes and markets in Eastern Africa and India.
You mean a reason besides the multiple factors other people have mentioned?
I'd be shocked if you were aware of this, but using most Indian sites for a history of mathematics is likely to not tell you very much. The Hindutva movement in India has scores of websites exhaggerating the already considerable Indian contributions to mathematics as a way of furthering their ultra-nationalistic movement.
Well, since you used MULTIPLE unverified internet sites, that changes everything. I absolutely will believe your facts over those of someone with a PhD in the field.
Still thats enough from me, I know when I'm wasting my time, even if I were right I'd still be wrong as I crossed swords with a Phd in some peoples eyes. Nice little club you have here, newbies may as well not bother to even try to debate.
You did no such thing. You insisted, several times, that progress of any sort was anathema to Islam and that anything good that came out of the Middle East must have originated elsewhere and was merely slavishly imitated by the Arabs. You stated this several times as a mantra even when offered evidence to the contrary.I can see trying to debate here is a waste of time, I put up a theory,
Well, see, Islam has martyrs too - perhaps you have more in common with it than you thought.all I get is abuse
You've got a lot of nerve complaining about rhetoric when you've been spouting plenty of your own. I mean, you were talking about the School of Nisibis as if it were M.I.T. or something.mixed with rhetoric on how Islam invented just about everything from coffee to cryprographic algorhythms.
You know, at first glance this almost sounds profound, but on further analysis it's meaningless. What do you mean "there was no fall as such, they just never moved on?" What's that supposed to mean? One might as well argue that Rome or China or Egypt never "fell," they just never "moved on."That they built upon previous knowledge I accept, that at some stage they fell behind is a given, as to why, well theres the Mongols, they destroyed much scientific knowledge in the invasions in the 13th century, however there was still the Ottoman empire having a golden age in the 16th century, so the Mongols aren't to blame. From being one of the beacons of civilisation to where they are now would be quite a fall, however there was no fall as such, they just never moved on.
You know, at first glance this almost sounds profound, but on further analysis it's meaningless.
Yes, I know, I shouldn't be so aggressive against him. It is incredibly frustrating, however, to put time and effort into a response to claims I've seen raised a gajillion times, only to be parried by litany of "no, it's not, you're wrong, look here, I've got a website."Ouch. The chap is new you know.
With regard to the agricultural question raised earlier, I read an excellent article on the train ride to work. The long and the short of it is that the Muslims inherited the tax policies of the Byzantines and continued to apply them to non-Muslim landowners. Muslims, on the other hand, paid only the tithe. As a result, many non-Muslim landowners converted to Islam to avail themselves of the lower tax rates, but the government soon put a stop to this, setting the tax rate to the territory rather than the religion of its owner. This gave an inherent advantage to those landowners who were (in theory) administering state lands (albeit ones deeded over in perpetuity) as opposed to those who owned their own land. Eventually, this gave rise to a system parallel to the feudal estates of Christian Europe.There is a legitimate point here - the last real Islamic Empire fell in the 1920s, yet Islam's "fall from grace", (do we mean material and cultural superiority?) happened a long-time before.
This encourages analysis of internal not external causes. If we think that a meaningful distinction of course.
Yes, I know, I shouldn't be so aggressive against him. It is incredibly frustrating, however, to put time and effort into a response to claims I've seen raised a gajillion times, only to be parried by litany of "no, it's not, you're wrong, look here, I've got a website."
In particular, the millions of documents currently in the Ottoman archives. If and when these are translated out of Ottoman and made available to the scholarly public, they will lead to a revolution in the way that Middle Eastern history, and perhaps even general history, is perceived.This means more translated documents, a couple of months ago I read a 20th C history of Iran, by a man named Ali Ansari, so not a westerner by origin, but his main sources seemed to be British Foreign Office documents - inevitably leading to a lopsided view. Presumably the lack of alternate material - and particularly translated material, held back widening his sources.
In particular, the millions of documents currently in the Ottoman archives. If and when these are translated out of Ottoman and made available to the scholarly public, they will lead to a revolution in the way that Middle Eastern history, and perhaps even general history, is perceived.