If only i even mentioned such a thing, but i was merely talking about relatives, not absolutes. The fact that in the 700-1300 period Arab traders were everywhere and that the Middle East was a "pinnacle of science" (i know, strong word, evil, revisionism) of sorts are undeniable, and that was my point.
I had Janet Abu-Lughod and Sevket Pamuk in my mind, the former being an American-Palestinian, the latter a contemporary Turk, but as you wish, ebil euro-centrist muslims ruining everything.
Not religiously fanatic and less religiously fanatic are worlds apart, and i am going to stand by the latter, especially considering how i described it, which you haven't even mentioned in your tirade. Before the black death the church in Europe was dependent on its massive land holdings that it directly administered, while since it had strong connections all over Europe, it means that also filled in the position of bankers, the two of which led to immense wealth. In the same period, the muslim traders, bankers and capitalists of sorts (or "moneyers and wealthy families" if this figure of speech is less revisionist for you) were a powerful group with connections everywhere from London to Guandong (the golden dirhams of King Offa to the muslim outposts in Southern China that persisted for a century, both in the 8th - 9th centuries). This means that the relative power of the clergy dominated in Europe, but the relative power of this proto-bourgeoisie could dominate in the muslim world, or at least its centres in Egypt and Iraq, which means that society as a whole and its outlook were less religiously fanatical. Eventually the mongols, the plague and the East Indies companies crushed the muslim commercial empire and raised the european one, while the black death and reformation significantly weakened the clergy in Europe, while the bourgeoisie rose, leading to the opposite effect.
Seriously, your entire response seemed more of a simple argument for the sake of argument than anything else.
Janet Lughob's studies is partly correct in the world systems theory, however it is somewhat idealistic. It rarely builds from contemporary accounts and usually shuns those histories. Further I disagree that there ever was a collapse of world systems in the Islamic world until the decline of the Mughals, which was brought about by the Maratha and Afsharid. I certainly do not feel that the Safavid period which oddly surpassed the previous Muslim cultures in terms of cultural etiquette and art was simply a collapse brought about by the intrusive colonial voyages of Portugal. She also denies the relevance of the Timurids in its artistic achievements and the following Mughal achievements which frankly surpass in relevance most of what the Abbasid period created in terms of culture.
Sevket writes on economics.....
Also them being Muslim means nothing, I never said that the golden age theory was Eurocentric. Quite the opposite, it is either one of a few things
- PanArabic idealism
-Lazy history, by this I mean who often cover a specific area like "Abbasid science" but neglect to read either the contemporary sources and the overarching Abbasid period.
- or the vast and wide European echo chamber of baseless compliments to the Islamic community.
Further are any of these authors operating primarily on the historians of those time periods and in Arabic? I know Sevket isn't, he is operating within the Turkosphere.
700-1300, I work within specifics, give me a period of Islamic history and I will explain it. However I will give my most favored Islamic state, the Abbasid period.
In the period of Islamic conquests, as a result of the momentum of the Riddah wars and the various wars led by Muhammad (SAW), the Muslim state absorbed great amounts of land. This vast land was then expanded by the Umayyads with continual war on its neighbors through Baqqiyyah wa-Tattamadad, remaining and expanding, a constant wave of invasion upon Dar al-Harb (the same as Dar al-Kufr). The call was to war until all Fitnah out of the works as was instructed them by Allah and by Muhammad (SAW). This however, required the use of Arab tribes to their greatest extent, separating them from their traditional lives as Arabs spread far and wide to wage war against the kingdoms of Europe, Central Asia, Africa, India, etc...
This Umayyad period, was the pinnacle of the Arab warrior and the concept of Arab primacy over everyone, as the embodiment of the spirits of honor and strength and the pillar of Islam. A reliance the Umayyads followed well. However the rise of the Abbasid powers saw the end to this system, which essentially was the extension of the final pieces of Jahil, the concepts of the Arab before Islam.
As a result, the Abbasids rose to power on the alliance of minority groups. This led to the rise of science as vast numbers of works began to be created by scientists and books of the past translated from Persian and Syriac to Arabic. The translation of the classics, which was made under the auspices that these Greeks were Muslim, after all the Quran claimed (according to Tafsir of the time) that Dhul-Qurnayn was Akexander the Great and that he was Muslim (even ibn Taymiyyah believed this).
However this growth in science was paired with a serious rise in backwards thought that was even more oppressive than the previous Umayyad Baqqiyyah wa Tattamadad. By this, I refer to the creation of the Mu'Tazila and their various views.
Originally an Islamic sect that believed reason was Allah or that through reason one could understand Allah, more so than his actual words. However it also believed in extreme absolutes such as; Allah's names and attributes (Asma wa Sifat) cannot be pronounced nor can one have any semblance to them, Allah punishes eternally (like the Khawarij and Ibadi), Allah does not punish certain acts like gluttony. Then the absolute main position of Wasit ibn Ata, that the Quran was created at an unknown time as opposed to the Islamic view that it is uncreated, this is covered in detail by Ibn Taymiyyah.
This sect, began to dominate the Abbasid courts in the 200s AH. This period led to several things:
- the disenfranchisement of the Arab under the foot of minorities of ethnicity. This included most importantly military positions which were quickly filled by Mamluk slaves. The Mu'Tazila based upon an odd scientific reasoning mixed with Arab folklore, created a certain racial hierarchy (see al-Jahiz). With Zanj fulfilling the roles of hard labor and Turks in the positions of military power (which starved the Arabs of their previous sustenance, which was booty in war) and Arabs as rulers (which is laughable as almost always, the Turks ruled the court). The result of all this is the complete disenfranchisement of the Arab in every way, this led directly to the fall of the Abbasid period and removed any serious Arab rule for hundreds of years, not exactly a golden era, huh?
- the brutal repression of Shi'i under the new law codes of the Abbasid, which denied Shi'i access to Najaf-Karbala and stopped all pilgrimages for them to Qufa. Further, the Abbasid state brutally attacked Shi'i who were not within Taqiyyah. This led as a result to major Shi'i revolts against Abbasid power and the further militarization of the villages and towns of Iraq.
- the Mihna or the inquisition. A plan by the Abbasid state to enforce the Mu'Tazila view that the Quran was created. This led to the repression of many Arab scholars who held to the Sunni position of the Quran. Look to the examples of scholars of extreme merit who were murdered by this policy or the example of Ibn Hanbal (father of Hanbali Fiqh) who was tortured for his faith and led to rebellions in Baghdad in outrage of the barbarism of the Abbasid rule.
The signs of this, is in the extremely vicious rebellions which followed which drained Iraq of every bit of wealth it had inherited from the Sassanids as the Zanj burned their way across al-Sawad and then in the short time after led to the rise of the Qarmatians and the dismantling of the Kabba, the Khawarij revolt of Ninewah which depopulated complete areas. The Abbasids despite scientific growth was in a constant state of crisis and military defeat or woes in general, looking like a golden age?
Also economically it was already moving towards backwardness, relying heavily on the Shar'i model, it lacked the rudiments of capitalism and even into the Ottoman period relied on slavery for economic growth, far more so than the average European or Chinese. Not to mention the exact same restrictions on banking and lending as in Catholic Europe.
King Offa, is this an Islamic ruler of the Arab world? His name certainly isn't nor the title.
The Arab bourgeoisie class? If bourgeois only refers to merchants far from home then perhaps, however the Abbasid period relied upon strictly controlling economics of the land in terms of enforcing Shar'i and Hadood in relation to the sell of goods.
For instance some restrictions included:
- sale of alcohol
- sale of pork & for brevity any other haram substances
-giving of Ribbah or interest
-mixing of meats
- restrictions on land tenor
- prohibition of Maysir, or situations in which the result was unknown
- prohibition pf Gharar, speculative transactions
-etc
For more information look up Fiqh al-Muamalat
You mention the clergy owning the banking system and such in Europe, of course but the state owned the banking system in the Islamic states, not particularly liberal, huh?
Also in what way is clergy ownership of the banks evidence of religious fanaticism? Especially when you have in the Arab world you have rebellions at massive scales over religion or the like, with cities completely depopulated and entire areas burned or turned into backwater land. You are speaking about a society in which every 50 years there is some religious man in a village giving rousing speechs for war against the Dawlah, where we have religious sects come about of extreme fanaticism, such as;
Khawarij
Mu'Tazila (after their Ascension to power they looked very similar to the Catholic Church)
Qarmatians and other extreme Ghulat
Khurramiyyah
Nizari like the Hashashin
Safaviyya, etc...
I guarantee you that you have read nothing on these subjects. You likely only focus on economic history, as opposed to Fiqh.
The Mongols were inconsequential. They simply destroyed a dying beast who had survived far past its age. The Abbasid state should've been done in for centuries by the Buyyids or Saffarids. Their entire land was ruined in rebellions for an entire century with both extreme corruption and decadence and religious persecution, further it is laughable to be the Amir al-Mu'minin when you are an Opium addict.
Again, the view of Mongol destructionism is based upon mythical iterations by pan Arabists and idealists. For instance, the Ilkhanid state saw a second growth of science, more so than the late Abbasid period. However, let me list to you accomplished Islamic states following the Mongol conquest:
Ottomans, most obvious. This was the greatest of all Islamic states, conquering al-Rum and being the last caliph. It also surpassed every Islamic state in terms of longevity.
The various iterations of Mamluk rule of Egypt. This saw the pinnacle of Futuwwa and other etiquettes of Islamic society that still exist today, it refined the old Arab concepts to a fine point. This period in terms of actual books produced surpasses the supposed golden age as well. Further look to Ibn Taymiyyah, he wrote more than any other Faqih before him and surpassed them verily.
Safavids, the state which essentially created and standardized modern Iranian culture. Further if you know anything about Islamic art then you know of the Safavid miniature. As well, this period surpassed any other Islamic state situated in Iran in terms of every possible measurement.
Timurids, what more is developing the majority of the Central Asian cities with scientists, architects, Faqih, etc...? Samarqand is an obvious example of the Timurids.
Mughals, must I say more?
All were defeated either by internal contradictions like the Mamluk succession crises, the decadence of the Safavid, military failure and overextension of the Mughal, age and decay of the Ottomans, weak succession laws of the Timurids, ethnic strife of the Ilkhans, etc.... None of these except arguably the Mamluk have anything to do with Europe or the Black Death.
Also when was the Islamic commercial empire destroyed? Muslim merchants still resided in Ming China, Muslim merchants from Oman flourished into the 20th century, etc... They just were out competed, possibly due to the fact in Europe we had true intellectual growth, one not of practicality as observed in China and the Arab world but one of abstract thought (e.g enlightenment).
Further, my argument was not for head taking, my argument is for the reading of Islamic history as its own, rather than the mirrored Europe history spread by hate filled Pan Arabists and anti colonialists or the mystical views of the idealist echo chamber.