When the Prophet Muhammad passed away in 632, his entire work was threatened with near dissolution, as his followers argued over the succession. In the end, after an all night debate, the Muslims elected Abu Bakr as Caliph, as successor to the Prophet but was himself not one.

Abu Bakr acted to stop the Arabian tribes from seceding upon the death of Muhammad, and even succeeded in expanding the sphere of Muslim power. At the battle of al-Aqraba in 633, the Muslims defeated a rival tribal confederation and took eastern Arabia as well. The stage was set for a grand entrance on the world stage.

The immediate outcome of this Muslim victory was turmoil for Muslim pressure drove other tribes into the imperial realms of both Persia and Byzantium. The Bakr tribe, which had defeated the Persians in 606, even joined forces with the Muslims to raid southern Iraq. Abu Bakr encouraged these movements, for they corresponded with Muhammad's intentions and helped to recruit bedouins for the Muslim cause.

At first, the Arab raids were mainly for booty, but when the Byzantines sent an army into southern Palestine to deal with them, Abu Bakr sent Khalid b. al-Walid to take command of the Arab clans. At the battle of Ajnadayn in 634, the Arabs inflicted a defeat on the Byzantines. Their appetite whetted, the Arabs began to dream of empire.

They moved swiftly. In 636, the Arabs took Damascus. Baalbek, Homs and Hama surrendered. The rest of the Syrian province continued to resist but Jerusalem fell in 638, followed by Caesarea in 640. Finally in 641, the Arabs took the northern Syrian towns of Harran, Edessa and Nasibin as well, completing their control of all of Roman Syria.

Next, the Arabs turned their attention to Egypt for it was a rich province, was the granary for Constantinople, had important naval yards and was the gateway to North Africa. The Arab general, 'Amr b. al-'As invaded the province on his own initiative in 641. Within the year, he had seized the entire country except for Alexandria, which finally fell in 643.

The next objective was Africa. Tripoli was taken in 643. But then, the Arab onslaught in this direction slowed. They would take another 75 years to conquer all of N Africa. Although Egypt and Syria had been won from the Byzantines, the Romans still controlled Anatolia and the Balkans. The two sides would continually engage in land and sea conflicts, as the Byzantines contested Arab control and attempted to regain their former lands.

The Sassanian empire, on the other hand, was totally conquered. The Arabs defeated the Persians at the battle of Qadisiya in 637 and seized their capital, Ctesiphon. The last Persian emperor, Yazdagird, was forced to flee into Inner Asia and seeked Turkish protection. All of Iraq fell into Arab hands.

However, in Iran, the resistance continued. The problem for the Arabs was not a strong centralized power resisting them, but a number of small weak principalities in remote locations to be dealt with in turn. It would take the Arabs decades to subdue all the quasi-independent principalities that had made up the Sassanian empire.

In the meantime, the Arabs moved north from the garrison base at Kufa, and occupied Mosul in 641. By 644, Nihawand, Hamadhan, Rayy, Isfahan and all the main cities of western Iran had fallen. The Arabs also captured Azarbayjan, to the west of the Caspian Sea, at around the same time.

Other forces operating from Basra captured Ahwaz (Khuzistan) in 640, but would take until 649 to completely capture the Fars region. Only then could the Arabs go on to subdue the more outlying regions like Armenia and Khurasan. The latter was conquered in 654.

This first wave was followed by grand campaigns several decades later. The Muslims would take all of North Africa by 711 and Spain by 759. To the north, the Arabs attacked Anatolia and launched three ultimately unsuccessful campaigns to capture Constantinople in 660, 668 and 717.

They fought against the Khazars in the Caucasus. They would capture the capitals of Transoxania, Bukhara and Samarqand, in 712 and 713. The Arabs now commanded the whole of the Middle East, as well as North Africa, Spain and Transoxania.

The reasons for the dazzling Arab successes were not hard to fathom. The Byzantines and Sassanians had exhausted themselves in mutual warfare for decades, prior to the Arab onslaught. In addition, the Christians, the Copts in Egypt, the Monophysites in Syria and the Nestorians in Iraq, were disaffected with Byzantine and Sassanian rule. This disaffectation was crucial where Christian Arab tribes and military auxiliaries joined with the new invaders and where fortified cities simply surrendered.

The conquests were possible due to the military weakness of the imperial powers, and were consolidated due to acceptance of local populations of the new order. This was further secured by a mass migration of Arabian peoples to the new territories. A new era had begun.

Map of the Islamic expansion...

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/islamicexpansion.jpg

The walls of Constantinople, the only thing which had stopped the Arabs from taking the city...

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/ConAttack.gif

Another map...

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/Islammap.jpg

Fascinating :goodjob: This goes on to prove that being a nomad goes a long way. I like the size of that empire.

So XIII, you are saying that Islam was spread by force?

Let's not turn this into a religious debate; if you really want to know, do your own research. :p

That said - the Christian populations of Syria, Egypt and Iraq weren't converted by the sword if that's what you meant. In fact, some of the Arab conquerers, being tribal and clannish, were more keen on keeping Islam as their exclusive religion, and ruling the native populations as an elite Islamic upper-class.

The original explosive of Islam was an imperial expansion, and nothing much to do with wanting to convert the natives, at least not originally. Many of the Arab warriors themselves weren't even Muslims yet! :eek:

Still, the locals converted voluntarily thru the passage of decades and even centuries, for various reasons like lower taxes and access to public office. Even so, there're still Christians in the Mid-east today like the Christian Arabs in Lebanon e.g. or the Copts in Egypt. ;)

Aside from their military prowess, another major reason behind the Arabs remarkable sucess was their ability to win the 'hearts and minds' of the peasants and ruling classes of the conquered territory. While they initialy achieved this through reducing taxes, in the longer run the sucess of the Arab Empire was due to the willingness of much of the conquered population to voluntarily convert to Islam as well as the Arabs sensible policy of generally not persecuting those who didn't change religions (especially those who followed other 'religions of the book' [ie, Jews and Christians]).

Aside from creating a fairly peaceful empire, these policies also greatly weakened new targets of conquests willingness to resist: before nationalism took off, most populations seem to have been essentially indifferent to the nationality and nature of the people ruling them - what mattered was the treatment they recieved from their rulers. The Arabs were generally better then the people they replaced, and as a result the resistance to their inital expansion seems to have been lacking in motivation - a lot of territory simply surrendered to Arab control.

It's interesting to note that the reasons that the Arab empire fell apart had a lot more to do with shear distance and religious differences within Islam then any restive behavior on the part of the conquered populations.

Another thing that I just remembered that's been ignored.

A HUGE part of the Muslim expansions was that the Muslims simply wanted the rich land in the fertile crescent. If they were gonna grow and become powerful, they wouldn't be able to do it in the middle of a desert. Coupled with the weakened Byzantine and Sassanid empires of the time, it was the perfect opportunity for the Arabs to acquire a bunch of high-value land.

Pls note - this article thread is only meant to discuss the early part of the Islamic expansion only. Additional topics shld be started as new threads. Thanks.

The "peaceful co-existence" part sounds rather unlike their modern selves, but that's besides the point ... very good read, though. Sources?

I find this period of history fascinating... i would like to read about this in even more detail

it really is amazing the rate at which the empire expanded
on a side note... at which point did the Shiite/Sunni split occur? I was under the impression it was fairly early...
was this entire empire truly ruled by one ruler? ie.. was it unified early on, or split up into different kingdoms and controlled by different rulers?

on a side note... at which point did the Shiite/Sunni split occur? I was under the impression it was fairly early...
was this entire empire truly ruled by one ruler? ie.. was it unified early on, or split up into different kingdoms and controlled by different rulers?
My thoughts exactly. When did Sunnis, Shias, and Sufis split? When did the original "really big empire" split into Abbasids, Fatimids, and others?

The Shi'ites separated in 661, when the Ummayads founded a hereditary office. The Abbasids emerged in 750 after overthrowing the Ummayads, the survivors of which went to Spain and refounded their Caliphate there. In 969, the Fatimids founded their own Caliphate in Egypt. The Ayyubids took their title and office in 1169.

He he he remember to play my civ2 scn when I finish it.
It will be one of few civ2 scenarios dealing with this topic, from Roman, Persian and Muslim side.

And the countries that Islam expanded into are now among the poorest most brutal lands in existence...

And the countries that Islam expanded into are now among the poorest most brutal lands in existence...

Kind of like half the countries Spain and Britian expanded to. Whats your point?

The difference is that the lands Britain and Spain expanded too, at least majority of them, weren't as rich as the ones Arabs expanded to.
Inca Empire... Aztec Empire, India perhaps - but the rest was pooooor.

I don't know if digging this out is right but it happens a lot here so I think it's not wrong besides there is no rules thread here

I just wanted to talk about saying that all countries muslims Expanded to are the poorest in existance
if u get back to the era of conquests u will find who was really poor it was people of Egypt and Syria the byzanties had everything to them by exagerated taxes and privilages in fact I'm Egyptian and I know what I'm talking about the Egyptians didn't even fight back muslims they were very welcome as during muslim rule there was great equality between people
moreover look at the countries in the Iberian peninsula during muslim rule they were very prosperous economically ,culturally and of course scintefically in fact muslim and non muslim geographists contributed to the discovery of the new lands of course not in person but europeans used their maps after the reconquesta
now that's thing that countries under British rule for instance didn't have

so again what does Islam have to do with poverty of these countries ?? european Imperialism is to be blamed
one more thing is malysia,brunai or the arabian(persian)gulf countries among the poorest nations ??

The Sassanian empire, on the other hand, was totally conquered. The Arabs defeated the Persians at the battle of Qadisiya in 637 and seized their capital, Ctesiphon. The last Persian emperor, Yazdagird, was forced to flee into Inner Asia and seeked Turkish protection. All of Iraq fell into Arab hands.
.

is it the sassanian empire or sassanid empire or are they different things?

Masr, welcome here. You're from Al-Mansura, the one where St Louis' crusaders were stopped by mamluks after As-Salih Ayyub's death?

I think You're exagerrating. When Arabs conquered Egypt they kept the administration they found there. Why do You think there was more social equality in Egypt aftyer muslim conquest? And it's not like there were not Coptic uprisings against muslim rule.
I will not comment the map thing for I don't know enough about it, but don't You find it strange... If Al-Andalus knew these lands why there's no sign of it? Why weren't there any trade or cultural contacts between it and these lands?
It's true that muslim lands were prosperous for a long time. I'm not claiming what John HSOG sems to claim, I just think that aaminion's point was a bad one. Syria and Egypt were the richest provinces of Byzantine Empire, and as such the richest part of christian world. You can hardly compare that to Nigeria, Sudan or what is now called Canada.






sassanian empire = sassanid empire.

sassanian empire = sassanid empire.

thanks squonl for clearing that up for me. is is the the way they say it or pronounce it?

Sorry, but I do not understand the question

This is how I pronounce it: Sass - an - id :smug:

This is how I pronounce it: Sass - an - id :smug:
thanks mongoloid cow! i thought it was sass-a-nid or is that another way to say it? :confused:

sasan was the ancestor of Ardershir the founder of the Dynasty.
sasan : pronounce both "a" as you would in Father.
sasani: of sasan, from sasan's family
sasanian: in Persian this is plural of sasani,e.g. iran--->irani---->iranian
again the "a" is pronounced like Father

in English however sasanian simply means of sasan. sasanid, well i think thats the same thing.

squonol in answer to ur question yes al mansura is where luis the 9th was kept prisoner but he wasn't killed there he was set free for a ...... well like any POW sum of money paid by his wife and after that he continued his campaigns on Egypt from Cyprus though the mamalik Egyptians and Syrians were busy fighting genghis khan grandson holaku after he grounded Baghdad and went for the rest of the world

and I'm not exagerated the muslims didn't kept the original administration of course there was a whole a new system set up and I don't think there was any need for christians or copts to uprise against muslims rule, after if muslims were to fight christinary then the holy land would not have been holy any more .Omar Ibn al-khattab the caliph at that time made a treaty with the christians of the holy land though he was totally victorious and byzanties had no ability to fight any more nor could the inhabitants of the holy land any way the treaty was to keep all christian bussineses,money,churches or homes something which wasn't respected by the crusaders when they captured the city in their campaigns yet muslims again was so tolerable when saladin conquested it back .so maybe christians uprised but not in the way u think

besides that Egyptians did uprise against their roman(byzantine) rulers more and more and more than they did with muslim rulers

it's said in the quran that (no one should be obliged in what to beleif people can deffirentiate what's right and what's wrong)

in answer to a question about if the empire wasw ruled by one man .yes it was and it didn't split untill the rise of the abbasids
at the time of the omayids(not sure if that's what u call them) the muslim empire stretched from what's not western borders of china to Iberian peninsula all ruled by one man in damascus

I don't know if digging this out is right but it happens a lot here so I think it's not wrong besides there is no rules thread hereWelcome, Masr! :)

While we tend to discourage reviving very old threads, however for History at least, I'll let it by if you have a good point to make. ;)

one more thing is malysia,brunai or the arabian(persian)gulf countries among the poorest nations ??Brunei and the Gulf nations were rich because of their oil, rather than because of their religion. ;)

Being Malaysian myself, I believe I can best speak for my home country. In Malaysia's case, IMO we're prosperous not because we're Islamic (I'm Chinese BTW), but because we have inherited a reasonably good system of governance fr the British colonial administration, plus large numbers of immigrants fr India and China who'd flee fr their homelands for a variety of reasons and were more willing to do what it takes to get ahead.

But this is getting way off-topic, so pls keep the discussion back on-topic. ;)

and I'm not exagerated the muslims didn't kept the original administration of course there was a whole a new system set up
Well, eventually maybe, only the original Arab invaders lacked any kind of experience in managing nations like Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia etc.
But they did know a good thing when they saw it, so they kept the local admin in place.
As long as the capital of the new Muslim empire was in Damascus they empire was run in Greek.
Later Baghdad was built and at this point it the Persian admin that took over running the empire. Actually if you look at the traditional vocabulary for govt. and admin functions in the Muslim world a lot of it is Persian in origin.
besides that Egyptians did uprise against their roman(byzantine) rulers more and more and more than they did with muslim rulers
Most importantly what they did after years of mismanaging from Constantinople was to give the invading Arabs their support. The Arabs had no trouble enlisting local support for chucking the Byzantines out of Egypt.:goodjob:

An immportant point about the arabs, is their culture and science dvelpoment. Their science was much above the European. It was becase the Christians denyed science, and muslims did not.

at the time of the crusades the arabs had better technolagy, medicine astromany (i think)

And better mathematics ;)

And better mathematics ;)

obvisly :p they also had better weapons (example scimiters) and they traded good

The thing is that at first many things that the Muslim did do actually made it better for the peoples to live. It was only later that did the true nature of Islam show afterwards. So now here is a question. Considering the sudden expansion of Islam and the Arabic nations, would it be a natural reaction by some nations to invade them so they can stop this sudden rise that threatened there way of life? Or another way, could there have been some justification for the Crusades? I think that the Crusades have been mysified from what they were really about.

For me, there can't be a justification for the crusades. The crusaders fought for money and tresures, for political reasons, but not to deffend the faith.

For me, there can't be a justification for the crusades. The crusaders fought for money and tresures, for political reasons, but not to deffend the faith.
Are you saying that the Rise of Islam was not done for the same reasons?

It was only later that did the true nature of Islam show afterwards.
What "true nature"?
Religions are what you make of them. Islam has innumerable forms (all considered the "true" version by its adherents) and a very looong and colourful history with plenty of twists and ups and downs.

Here it mostly looks as if you're struggling to come up with a way of explaining away the parts of the history of Islam that is considered to its credit by modern standards. (I.e. they weren't "real" since Islam shouldn't be able to support them, QED. Nice ad hoc argument, but not entirely convincing.):p

You seem to be assuming there's some kind of essential core that would become exposed, which ought to mean 1) you are an essentialist? 2) you deny historical development?
So now here is a question. Considering the sudden expansion of Islam and the Arabic nations, would it be a natural reaction by some nations to invade them so they can stop this sudden rise that threatened there way of life?
Invade what? The dessert? And considering the suddenness, there wasn't much you could do about it.
The one thing I can think of that might have helped would have been for Constantinopolis and the Sassanids not to have bled each other white with the decades of major warfare that preceded the Arabs turning up on their doorstep.
Or another way, could there have been some justification for the Crusades? I think that the Crusades have been mysified from what they were really about.
OK, but what's your view of the crusades? There's plenty of alternative interpretations.

I'd say the crusades were originally about the fact the christendom is geographically misplaced, by the medieval view of things.
It's centre was in the west but all the religiously important geography was somewhere else, thus the impetus to go conquer the holy grave etc.

And for all the cupidity and power-hunger of medieval nobles, underestimating the relgious significance of the crusading movement would be a mistake.
It started as a popular movement, with tens of thousands of ordinary people taking the cross. Of course, in the end, it was the nobles and their armies that proved to have long term survivability as the masses of common folk were cut to pieces under transit through Anatolia.

And once the nobles had shown their mettle (or lack thereof rather), the crusading movement came under intense criticism in Europe, around 1200, as their ungodly behaviour was seen as the reason for its failure.

For me, there can't be a justification for the crusades. The crusaders fought for money and tresures, for political reasons, but not to deffend the faith.
I'd say they fought to ensure that the world made sense, with chritianity controlling the major places of symbolic significance to them.

But, being nobles, most crusaders view of the world also included a presumed god-given right to money and power for themselves.

Which is what brought on the criticsm from clergy and commoners of the nobles having lost the crusade by not being god-fearing and just.

It was becase the Christians denyed science, and muslims did not.

This is completely untrue. For one thing, the Muslims inherited the learning of antiquity from the Christians they conquered. The superior learning of the Middle East to that of western Europe in the early Middle Ages can be attributed to a wide and complex web of causes, but a supposed greater openness to science on the part of Muslims compared to Christians is emphatically not one of them.

This is completely untrue. For one thing, the Muslims inherited the learning of antiquity from the Christians they conquered. The superior learning of the Middle East to that of western Europe in the early Middle Ages can be attributed to a wide and complex web of causes, but a supposed greater openness to science on the part of Muslims compared to Christians is emphatically not one of them.

Do you deny that the Church denyed science in Europe ?!?!
And the Islam religion didn't.
And will you please tell us some of the wide and complex web of causes ?

Are you saying that the Rise of Islam was not done for the same reasons?

Have you ever saw me saying such thing ???
I said that the crusader were fighting for riches and etc. I didn't said a word about the rise if the Islam...:confused:

And no, i don't think that the rise of the islam was done for different reasons. The islam was 'invented' with one purpose- to unite the arabic tribes.

Do you deny that the Church denyed science in Europe ?!?!

Yes, I do. If you think otherwise, give examples!

And will you please tell us some of the wide and complex web of causes ?

Well, the most obvious cause was the fragmentation of society in western Europe. In Merovingian France, for example, people were more worried about which warlord was going to burn all their fields next than about speculating about the composition of the stars. There simply wasn't the infrastructure or the resources for much philosophy or science. In the east, by contrast, the Arabs took over an enormous area and quickly established a largely peaceful rule over it.

You can see this more clearly when you appreciate that when there were periods of relative peace in western Europe, there was a rise in scholarship. Examples include eighth-century Northumbria and ninth-century Francia.

In addition to this, the areas ruled by the Muslims were those that had traditionally been centres of scholarship and research anyway. Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Edessa, Nisibis... Even in the heyday of the Roman Empire, the great cities of the west, such as Rome itself, were hardly centres of scholarship. The Muslims were lucky, in a sense, to get the best half of the old empire. As I stated before, they were also lucky to get a large Christian community which had preserved ancient scholarship and continued to keep traditions of philosophical debate alive. These Christians would later translate Aristotle and other ancient authors into Arabic, which is why the Muslims had them before the western Christians did. This indicates that the superior learning of the Middle East in the early Middle Ages had little to do with the fact that it was Muslim as opposed to Christian, because Middle Eastern Christians were also more learned than their western counterparts (compare John of Damascus to Isidore of Seville, for example). It had much more to do with the political conditions and the history of these areas.

Invented ??? unite arbic tribes ??? could u explain ur point of view fing

knight dragon ty and I know why countries of gulf, brunai and malysia rich religion don't bring money this is not civ 4 lol .and knight I think u being malysian u can tell people here how did Isalm reach malysia and Indonisia (the biggest muslim country)

I also to show one more point it's known that roman and persians started evoking wars with the new muslim country in arabia

This is completely untrue. For one thing, the Muslims inherited the learning of antiquity from the Christians they conquered. The superior learning of the Middle East to that of western Europe in the early Middle Ages can be attributed to a wide and complex web of causes, but a supposed greater openness to science on the part of Muslims compared to Christians is emphatically not one of them.
Often it was the manner in how that knowledge. At first on the Muslim side they would take the knowledge and use it for their benefit and the "Christian" nations wold ingore it because to the superstitions of the time. It was only during the Reformation and the accompaning Age of enlightenment that science was able to get out of the superstitious hold that Roman Catholicism had hold of people until scientific experiments was able to break the hold of this superstition. Whereas the Muslims went the other way. They started out as being receptive to scientific research and then they became superstitious. Most of the acids that I work with were discovered by Arabic scientists and we know that they were active in science for awhile, but now they became superstitious. It is only recently that this superstition is starting get rid of because of the clear proof in what science can do.

Yes, I do. If you think otherwise, give examples!
Galileo. It was this case that brought into disrepute the Catholic Church. As a side note. This case is often brought forward as an evidence against the Bible. This is not the case as I pointed out in a thread in OT. I can get that post you want.

[classical hero] Galileo! How can you cite an affair from the seventeenth century as evidence for the church's attitudes in the early Middle Ages? Aren't we meant to be talking about the causes of medieval Islam's scientific superiority over the west?

Besides which, the Galileo affair was not one of the church clamping down on science. On the contrary, the vast majority of scientists disagreed with Galileo as well. Galileo had fairly good evidence for his views, but it was far from conclusive, and most rational people were hardly about to overthrow many centuries of consensus just on his say-so. Galileo was condemned not for holding heliocentric views per se but for his insistence that he could prove them to be true (he believed, wrongly, that his theory of the tides proved heliocentrism). The Renaissance church, like most modern scientists, held the view that scientific theories were predictive models rather than authoritative descriptions of reality.

As I've pointed out here before, the notion that Galileo's condemnation was the result of a dispute between "church" and "science", and that this represented the typical relationship between the two, was a nineteenth-century myth (mostly down to Andrew Draper and William Dickson White). Modern historians completely repudiate it: the Galileo controversy was not one between church and science, but one within the church (Galileo argued that the Bible did not contradict his views) as well as one within science, and in both camps, Galileo was in a small minority.

Yet even if all this weren't true, and the standard American-invented myth of Galileo the hero scientist condemned by a wickedly superstitious church were true, it wouldn't prove very much. Where are all the other scientists condemned by the superstitious church? No-one ever comes up with any names other than Galileo, as if that one case were enough to prove the church's mindset for a thousand years.

In fact, if we look at medieval history we see that the church was typically involved in cracking down on superstition rather than inventing more of its own, especially in the earlier period. Just look at the work of someone like Agobard of Lyon, who spent much time promoting a rationalist understanding of the world and criticising charlatans who claimed to be able to control the weather. Similar attitudes can be found in everyone from Peter Abelard to Thomas Aquinas.

As I indicated above, we can explain the superior state of learning in the Muslim countries during the early Middle Ages without having to appeal to different attitudes to it on the part of Muslims and Christians. It's not the case that the same learning was available in both regions but the Muslims were more open to it while the Christians, being more superstitious, avoided it: rather, the western Christians just didn't have access to it. As I said, the eastern Christians were perfectly open to it, and introduced much of it to the Muslims. Consider the case of Hunain ibn Ishaq, ninth-century physician to the caliph and translator of Galen (and others) into Arabic. Was he superstitiously afraid of science? If not, where is the evidence that western Christians were?

I'd be interested in seeing the post about Galileo and the Bible, though. I also have an article on Galileo by David Lindberg, who is one of the foremost authorities on the subject, who supports the points I made above on the subject - although I probably can't post it here as it's not yet published. But you can read a short interview with him at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/105/21.0.html which is quite helpful. See also his longer article at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html#Beyond%20War%20and%20Peace: 

@Plotinus. How often do people want to preserve there career even though they know that what they are teaching is wrong? That is why many scientists were in disagreement with Galileo, because they knew that there livelyhods would be in jeopardy. It is interesting to not that Brahe and Kepler were never put o trial like Galileo, even though they went further to explain the universe than Galileo.

knight dragon ty and I know why countries of gulf, brunai and malysia rich religion don't bring money this is not civ 4 lol .and knight I think u being malysian u can tell people here how did Isalm reach malysia and Indonisia (the biggest muslim country)Islam reached SE Asia peacefully, thru the trade routes.

The first documented place to accept Islam was Pasai, a port city on the N Sumatera coast. Then the Malacca sultanate, which was at the heart of the trade networks of SE Asia. It just follows from there.

Islam seemed like a successful powerhouse (thru out the Mid-East, Persia and N India etc), and SE Asians just followed suit - much like how they had taken Hinduism and Buddhism earlier on from Indian traders.

Well quite, so that indicates that the church didn't have some kind of plan to persecute anyone who believed in heliocentrism. Still, I'm not convinced by your suggestion that the scientific community did agree with Galileo but kept schtum out of fear of the church. What evidence is there for this? It was not until the time of Newton that pretty much everyone agreed that the evidence for heliocentrism was overwhelming. The scientific consensus rarely changes quickly - it takes time for radical new theories to become accepted, in part because most radical new theories turn out to be wrong. It would have been extraordinary if most scientists had agreed with Galileo at the time, quite apart from the church's views or actions.

[Knight-Dragon] Were there sultans on the Malaysian peninsula before Islam arrived?

They were known as rajahs then, in the Indian manner. Mostly port settlements feeding on the trade routes. The first leader of Malacca was a rajah, a prince fleeing from the fading kingdom at Palembang in Sumatera.

After conversion to Islam (though pre-Islamic practises persist up until today, arguably :ack: ), they used the term sultan instead. ;)

Invented ??? unite arbic tribes ??? could u explain ur point of view fing

knight dragon ty and I know why countries of gulf, brunai and malysia rich religion don't bring money this is not civ 4 lol .and knight I think u being malysian u can tell people here how did Isalm reach malysia and Indonisia (the biggest muslim country)

I also to show one more point it's known that roman and persians started evoking wars with the new muslim country in arabia

I put the word invented in inverted commas beacause it is not the excact word...but i will explain you.

Mohamed decided to make a religion. He took pieces from his neighbours- the Judean, the Byzantians, the Persians...
And the purpose for that religion beeing made, is that something which can unite the arabs was needed. Before the Islam, there were no strong arab country. After it, all arabs united and formed the Arabian Khaliphat.

Such views are not making you popular. Warned for trolling. - KD

Isn't all this true ? I can't see how saying the true is trolling.

Public discussion of mod action. Warned. - KD

From the forum rules, 'your right to free speech is not applicable here'.

No-one ever comes up with any names other than Galileo, as if that one case were enough to prove the church's mindset for a thousand years.
Giordano Bruno.

But I agree that the relationship between church and science was far more ambivalent than generally depicted. In my understanding, the church "discouraged" scientific research only in selected areas of research (for example anatomy, astronomy), while it promoted research in most other fields. Violent suppression of scientific progress was very unusual - especially by torturing / burning of "troublesome" researcher, which happenend only in precious few cases. In general, the church was able to suppress undesired researcher by socially isolating and defaming them.

But altogether, I think the church did a lot more to foster science than to obstruct it.

I don't know fing If I should really get along with u in such argument but I'll tell u just a piece of history prophet mohamad PBUH invited both caesars of rome, rulers of egypt, rulers of persia and rulers of what is now Ethiobia to Islam when only very few arabs were converted to Islam so change ur Idea about priorities

wow this is getting heated liek it did the american thread lol.
im sorry if i apear stupid but whats the diffrerecne beteewn islam or an arab? because i dotn understand

Big difference
Islam is a religion adopted by about 3\4 billion of non arabs
while arabs are the inhabitants of countries using arabic as main language they form part of the remaining billion muslims though there is a percent of non muslim arabs mainly christians as most of the jews leave now in Israel

of course u know about ottomans they ruled the majority of muslim countries and arab countries mainly yet they r turks not arabs

Big difference
Islam is a religion adopted by about 3\4 billion of non arabs
while arabs are the inhabitants of countries using arabic as main language they form part of the remaining billion muslims though there is a percent of non muslim arabs mainly christians as most of the jews leave now in Israel

of course u know about ottomans they ruled the majority of muslim countries and arab countries mainly yet they r turks not arabs

thanks MasrtheEgyption i thought arabs where people who bielived in islam.

glad I could help

They were known as rajahs then, in the Indian manner. Mostly port settlements feeding on the trade routes. The first leader of Malacca was a rajah, a prince fleeing from the fading kingdom at Palembang in Sumatera. There was no kingdoms in Malaca prior to Parameswara was there? I learnt that it was inhabitted by proto-malays who were kin to their Sumatran cousins, that was why they invited him to be ruler over them. I didn'nt know if there was any pre existing "higer" civilization in the region before that.

The first sultan of Malacca converted to islam primarily as a matter of political and economic expedience. Most of the merchants, from India were muslims as well as some rulers in Indonesia.

There're remains of some settlements in Lembah Bujang in Kedah and in Langkasuka in Patani which were dated many centuries earlier than Malacca IIRC. There're also records in the Chinese annals of settlements in the penisular.

Malacca was uninhabited, up till when Parameswara came over. But he soon had to face the Siamese who were advancing down the penisular. In reply, he acquired Chinese protection. The Ming empire sent an envoy to Siam and simply ordered them to stop harassing Malacca (since it also served as an important port for the Ming fleets which were active at this time). The king of Siam took the Chinese seriously, bearing in mind the long arm of the Ming emperor (thru the fleets).

Whatever the greatness of their expansion, the fact that the empire collapsed in on itself so quickly shows true weakness in the concept and the religion used to administrate it.

It didn't collapse fast la cosa they stayed in spain(which was about last place they went to) 8 centuries

any way u r welcome to give us examples showing us how weak muslims concept in administration was ?

Giordano Bruno.

Bruno was executed for his theological views, not for his scientific ones.

But I agree that the relationship between church and science was far more ambivalent than generally depicted. In my understanding, the church "discouraged" scientific research only in selected areas of research (for example anatomy, astronomy), while it promoted research in most other fields. Violent suppression of scientific progress was very unusual - especially by torturing / burning of "troublesome" researcher, which happenend only in precious few cases. In general, the church was able to suppress undesired researcher by socially isolating and defaming them.

But altogether, I think the church did a lot more to foster science than to obstruct it.

I agree with your general assessment. However, be careful: the church most certainly did not discourage research in astronomy. In fact, most of the most prominent astronomers of the seventeenth century and afterwards were Catholics, especially Jesuits. Riccioli, Grimaldi, Clavis, Kircher, Noel, Scheiner, Cysat... The Moon is littered with craters named after them!

Here's an extract from an interesting piece by Gene Callahan. He's criticising a passage in a book by John Gribbin which glosses over the dispute about comets between Galileo and the Jesuits. You can see the whole piece at http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan127.html

Pietro Redondi, unlike Gribbin, does not think it pointless to examine these theories in Galileo: Heretic. He finds that the Jesuit astronomers' report on the comets, issued in 1619, won the approval of the prestigious Collegio Romano "because it documents the scientific quality of observational astronomy cultivated by the order." Their report, relying on the recent advances in astronomy made by Tyco Brahe, is summarized by Redondi as follows: "The exiguous size of the parallax [i.e., comets did not change their position against background stars very much, even when observed from widely separated places in Europe, indicating that they were fairly distant from the earth], the constant motion of a planetary type, the lack of telescopic enlargement, led [the Jesuits] to place the comet in a position between the moon and the sun: a celestial body in motion along a great circle, brilliant with reflected solar light, unlike what Aristotle had maintained. Once again, Jesuit astronomy gives the Collegio Romano an example of its open-minded freedom of research, as when it had officially recognized the discoveries of the Starry Messenger [Galileo's book in which he had described the findings he made by employing a telescope to explore the heavens]" (p. 41). The seventeenth-century Jesuit astronomers, based on their careful observations, had arrived at a theory of comets somewhat like the one that astronomers hold today. I have no doubt that modern scientists would find their theory unsatisfactory in some respects – but are there any astronomical theories that were current during the seventeenth century that would be completely acceptable today?

And what of Galileo? Redondi (p. 41) notes that the only comet Galileo had seen was when he was thirteen. (He was plagued by arthritis attacks during the appearances of the three comets in 1618, and so was unable to venture out to observe them.) However, he was aware that "a celestial body endowed with noncircular motion… was a threat to the Copernican system. So, without observations and without calculations, Galileo… took a position in the debate…" (Redondi, p. 31).

Just what was that position? Well, in order to avoid any potential embarrassment to Copernicanism, Galileo decided "to deny the physical reality of comets. They were not celestial bodies, but luminous appearances like rainbows or the sun's reflection on the sea at sunset" (Redondi, p. 32, emphasis mine). Comets, Galileo contended, were merely a visual phenomenon that did not correspond to any actual entities.

The Jesuits were stunned by Galileo's theory. They responded that "it is sufficient to have seen a comet 'only once,' with the naked eye or a telescope, to understand that it is not a matter of the play of light." Father Orazio Grassi, "an expert in the field of optics" (which Galileo was not), and other Jesuit astronomers, offered "a whole range of [scientific] refutations of Galileo's interpretive model" (Redondi, p. 43).

So, once we actually examine the arguments put forth by the Jesuits and by Galileo, which Gribbin claimed there was no point in discussing, it turns out that it was the Jesuit astronomers, and not Galileo, who based their conclusions on careful observation. Galileo, without having engaged in any scientific observation of comets whatsoever, was willing to dismiss them from physical reality because they were inconvenient for another theory he held. It was the Jesuit astronomers, and not Galileo, who had the more accurate theory of comets. And it was Galileo who was spinning a mere fancy, based on his faith in Copernicanism, while his Jesuit opponents explicitly contradicted the Catholic Church's favorite natural philosopher, Aristotle, based on their scientific studies.

Of course, the Jesuits also had members all over the world from the late sixteenth century onwards, because of their role in worldwide mission. Many of these missionaries devoted much of their time to astronomical observation, and helped to advance the science by observing phenomena not normally visible from Europe. This ability even came in handy for mission. Matteo Ricci impressed the Chinese by being better at astronomy than most of them, and more able to predict and explain eclipses. Indeed, a number of Jesuits became resident at the Astromonical Bureau in China. In the 1620s, the French Jesuit Alexandre de Rhodes travelled through what is now Vietnam, preaching. One of the things that recommended him to Trinh Trang, the king of the northern part of Vietnam, was his ability to predict and explain a lunar eclipse. Funnily enough, he later lost favour and travelled to the southern part, where he won many more converts by predicting and explaining a solar eclipse...

As for anatomy, I don't know enough about that to comment. Although I do know that capillaries were discovered by Marcello Malpighi, personal physician to Pope Innocent XII in the late seventeenth century. Malpighi is also important for his work in taxonomy: he believed that organisms should be classified on the basis of their internal structure, rather than on the basis of how useful they were to human beings, which had been the procedure of earlier taxonomists such as Conrad Gessner or Ulysse Aldrovandi. So this was a big step forward in scientific method. Malpighi was anticipating the more well-known Linnaeus.

fing0lfin, the point is that you're claiming that Muhammad's message was designed purely to unite the Arabian tribes, which implies that he preached it simply out of a political purpose and not because he thought it was true. So you're making him out to be a sort of conman, which is obviously offensive to Muslims.

and I'm not exagerated the muslims didn't kept the original administration of course there was a whole a new system set up and I don't think there was any need for christians or copts to uprise against muslims rule, after if muslims were to fight christinary then the holy land would not have been holy any more .Omar Ibn al-khattab the caliph at that time made a treaty with the christians of the holy land though he was totally victorious and byzanties had no ability to fight any more nor could the inhabitants of the holy land any way the treaty was to keep all christian bussineses,money,churches or homes something which wasn't respected by the crusaders when they captured the city in their campaigns yet muslims again was so tolerable when saladin conquested it back .so maybe christians uprised but not in the way u think

besides that Egyptians did uprise against their roman(byzantine) rulers more and more and more than they did with muslim rulers

it's said in the quran that (no one should be obliged in what to beleif people can deffirentiate what's right and what's wrong) I'm afraid You're wrong, Masr. Otherwise, why greek remained the language of administration until VIII century? It's not like Christains kept everything after muslim conquest, as well. They had to quater muslim soldiers and give some of their churches: like what today is Umayyad mosque in Damascus. First half of it was taken, later all of it. Saladin was a great person indeed, but recall Baybars - he was as merciless as crusaders, or more. An immportant point about the arabs, is their culture and science dvelpoment. Their science was much above the European. It was becase the Christians denyed science, and muslims did not. huh? For me, there can't be a justification for the crusades. The crusaders fought for money and tresures, for political reasons, but not to deffend the faith. why do You think so? If they wanted treasures, Al-Andalus was much nearer and could be easier reached. As well as Constantinople. Palestine was never a land of immense treasures. That people today have no religious zeal doesn't mean they didn't have it back then. And no, i don't think that the rise of the islam was done for different reasons. The islam was 'invented' with one purpose- to unite the arabic tribes. Again You do the same. It's fault of years of communism, I believe. Don't You understand that people actually believe, and especially believed, in their religion? That appearance of islam was followed by union of arabic tribes, and that this fact was result of islam doesn't mean islam was invented with cause of uniting anything. I also to show one more point it's known that roman and persians started evoking wars with the new muslim country in arabia how? im sorry if i apear stupid but whats the diffrerecne beteewn islam or an arab? because i dotn understand Let me add some info to what Masr said. There are about 1,2 bln muslims in the world. 200-300 mlns are Arabs. It may be strange that the number vary by this much, but it's a matter of defining Arab: are Sudaneese, Mauretanians, Saharunis, Eritreans, Somalians Arabs? Also, I live in Syria right now. And any person I ask gives me another number of citizens of this country. I don't think the citizens were counted anytime lately. As we've said, not all muslims are Arabs. Also, there are non-muslim Arabs, though almost entirely they are arabised remains of population of now-arabic countries from before arabic/muslim conwuest. And so, some 6-14% of Egyptians are christians, most of them are Copts, though Coptic is a dead language now, used in churches only I believe. About 10% Syrians are christian of various denominations, some still use aramaic language. Lebanon used to have a christian majority until last decades, now it's 27% christian. There are 3% christians in Iraq, 5% in Jordan, and less than that in Palestine. Eritrea is not really arabic, but it is sometimes counted as an arab state, so I'll mention that at least a third of it is christian. There used to be christians in Arabia, in Yemen, in Nagran, along Persian Gulf and even in Al-Higaz before Islam, but they were banned from there.

There used to be christians in Arabia, in Yemen, in Nagran, along Persian Gulf and even in Al-Higaz before Islam, but they were banned from there.
the fact that people used to live side be side,peacefully. Islam respects judaism, and christianity, and most of the Biblical Prophets are mentioned in Koran. Mary, mother of Jesus(PBUH), has a whole chapter in Koran name after her. (sura of Maryam)

The fact that there are no non-muslims in the Holy Land (i.e. Arabia) is because the Wahabi dominated Saudi Government, is ultra-radical, and its actions are in great ways contradictry to the Core of the Islamic teaching. If Mohammad (PBUH) was alive, he would be appalled, and I thing Jesus would agree with him.

I am not a historian, so what I say is simply from personal experiences.
Islam highly values Education, and Knowledge.
"One night of learnig is equal to a 1000 nights of prayers"
"seek knowledge from your cradle to your Grave"
At least the Hadiths, or sayings of the Prophet, and other leaders, emphasize learning as the duty of every good Muslim.

The Arabs themselves did not have a history, or tradition of Learning. They were nomadic, and circumstances had not allowed them to grow into a Civilized entity. They did however possess a beautiful, and poetic language.

When the Arabs, now also Mostly Muslim, conquered the land of Byzantine, Persia, Egypt, they encountered that tradition of learning, which they themselves lacked. so Greek philosophy, persian natural history, Indian Mathematics, and others, all were now gathered in one place in the name of
Islam. If anything, because of Islam, learned People from different parts of the world were now exposed to each other's ideas, and a rapid scientific exchange took place where, without Islamic cohesion, it would have taken much longer. And all this took place when Europe, or rather the western Christian world was in the Dark ages. Not because Christians per se were against learning, but because the church oppesed it (as it does now!!) in fact christian and Muslim sholars worked together in places like Damascus, Baghdad, Cordoba, Salamanca, Alexandria, etc.

And all this took place when Europe, or rather the western Christian world was in the Dark ages. Not because Christians per se were against learning, but because the church oppesed it (as it does now!!) in fact christian and Muslim sholars worked together in places like Damascus, Baghdad, Cordoba, Salamanca, Alexandria, etc.

As I pointed out above, the church did not oppose learning then, and it certainly doesn't oppose it now!

The Dark Ages were not caused by Christianity. Christianity had nothing to do with the fall of Rome, the invasions of the Vikings, or any of the other factors that made life miserable in the second half of the first millennium AD. If the state of scholarship was poor during that period, you can't blame the church for it - on the contrary, the most learned people of the time were churchmen, and they often bewailed the fact that general learning was so poor.

squonk
*If I travelled to the X country I'll be keen on learning X language not because it's better than mine but because I must communicate with people and It's unfair to ask them all to learn my language it's their country after all Egypt had a new governer,new laws and was under indirect control by the caliph in Mecca then
*I don't really know about the history of umayyad mosque so I hope u will tell us more about that .but any way u can't deny the treaty between omar Ibn al khattab and christians in the holy land
*baybers fought against Mongols who killed 4 million person In Baghdad and in the other side he was fighting some advantage taking crusaders so u tell me how he was merciless??
*you ask why didn't crusaders attack Andalus ?like they didn't .yet east muslim world was more worthy , you can tell from the times they attacked pilgrims caravans like thieves
*the first fight between muslims and romans was the battle of Tabuk which the muslims started after the romans allied with arabs in syria and roman armies started moving towards arabia ,persians did the same with iraqis near arabia

baybers fought against Mongols who killed 4 million person In Baghdad and in the other side he was fighting some advantage taking crusaders so u tell me how he was merciless??This number is highly exaggerated.

By that time, Baghdad was no longer the city it once was, under the maladministration of figurehead caliphs and the Turkic 'slaves'. A few hundred thousands at the very most.

As I pointed out above, the church did not oppose learning then, and it certainly doesn't oppose it now!

The Dark Ages were not caused by Christianity. Christianity had nothing to do with the fall of Rome, the invasions of the Vikings, or any of the other factors that made life miserable in the second half of the first millennium AD. If the state of scholarship was poor during that period, you can't blame the church for it - on the contrary, the most learned people of the time were churchmen, and they often bewailed the fact that general learning was so poor.
Well the common POV is that either the church or the Bible was at fault for the scientific draught during those times. Whereas the issues at hand are much more complicated than that. BTW, Plotinus, I was merely pointing out the common perpective on this issue. Here is a good article on this issue. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp
It does seem amazing that the common person does not know much about the history behind this affair and yet they continually bring this affair up. I know that I brought it up, but I did know that you would be able to defeat this by using your knowledge that you have.

This number is highly exaggerated.

By that time, Baghdad was no longer the city it once was, under the maladministration of figurehead caliphs and the Turkic 'slaves'. A few hundred thousands at the very most.

Ah that's ok then if that's all it was

What was that supposed to mean? :hmm:

There's some degree of difference betw 4 million and a few hundred thousands, numerically but of course as massacres they're both great tragedies regardless of the precise number.

But then this wouldn't be something new, since this was how the Mongol war machine worked.

The fact that there are no non-muslims in the Holy Land (i.e. Arabia) is because the Wahabi dominated Saudi Government, is ultra-radical, and its actions are in great ways contradictry to the Core of the Islamic teaching. If Mohammad (PBUH) was alive, he would be appalled, and I thing Jesus would agree with him.

Christians were expelled from Arabia over a thousand years before start of wahhabi movement


but because the church oppesed it (as it does now!!)


Provide me with some proof that church oppresed science in early middle ages and that it opresses science now.
Listen to what Plotinus says.



squonk
*If I travelled to the X country I'll be keen on learning X language not because it's better than mine but because I must communicate with people and It's unfair to ask them all to learn my language it's their country after all Egypt had a new governer,new laws and was under indirect control by the caliph in Mecca then


Again I say: Arabs were not prepared to ruling high advanced lands. They needed local administreation, the one which Romans/Byzantines left. Your analogy makes no sense. Greeks were a small minority in Syria, Palestine and Egypt. It would make no sense for Arabs to learn it to speak with coptic or aramaic - speaking population of these lands, especially that both these languages are close relatives of arabic. Even centuries later on, it were mostly christians or ex-christians to deal with finances of Egypt. Of course, Muslims sent their gouvernors, but lower administration remained as it was before.


*baybers fought against Mongols who killed 4 million person In Baghdad and in the other side he was fighting some advantage taking crusaders so u tell me how he was merciless??


Baghdad never had 4 mln citizens, so Mongols could hardly kill such an amount of people there. And it's no excuse for Baybar's deeds. Why do I think Baybars was merciless and evil?
- when Mongols approached county of Tripoli and duchy of Antioch were allied with them, kingdom of Jerusalem (Acca) was hostile to them, and allowed mamluks crossing its land and even proposed military asisstance against them (which proposition was denied); Baybars wanted to attack Acca then, during the crossing of its land, as it was not suspecting it, but Qutuz did not allow that.
- Baybars was merciless when capturing Outremer's cities. When Antioch was taken, he ordered its gates to be closed so that noone could escape and ordered killing of all its citizens.
- he destroyed the church of announciation (or whatever in English), without any reason, it was on his grounds.


*you ask why didn't crusaders attack Andalus ?like they didn't .yet east muslim world was more worthy , you can tell from the times they attacked pilgrims caravans like thieves


Again, do You really think Palestine was richer than Al-Andalus? Don't You believe it has religious meaning for Christians? The one who atack pilgrims a couple of times was Renauld of Chatillion, and he did that despite the will of his king.


*the first fight between muslims and romans was the battle of Tabuk which the muslims started after the romans allied with arabs in syria and roman armies started moving towards arabia ,persians did the same with iraqis near arabia


As far as I know, the first Romans vs Muslims batle was batle of Mut'a, when Muslims attempted to steal weaponry produced there; adopted son of Muhamad was killed, but Khalid bn al-Walid (Sayf al-Islam) managed to secure muslim retreat.
Romans and Ghassanids were allies for decades if not centuries at that time.
The same with Persians and Lakhmids. Don't You find it strange that two countries drowning in internal turmoil should attack a newly borned ever-expanding power and are ran over by it? Where have You read Romans attacked Muslims?

Some things about Islam, religion in politics, autocratic traditions etc. I think should be set straight.

It seems to be a common assumption that the high level of atocratic regimes in the Arab Middle East are caused by the application of Islam to religious policies?

Well, that's not the case.

Islam was of course from its origins a political movement as much as a religious one. Most of the major division within Islam (Sunni and Shia most importantly) are much less about doctrine than about political allegience.

This was the kind of politics you got in the Golden Age of the Muslim empire (650-950 or so), when various dynasties from a number of branches of Muhammed's family vied for power (Ummayads, Abbasids), i.e. the days of the Caliphs.

BUT, that period, and the conflation of religion and political power, ended between 900-1000 or so.

What happened? Well, another bunch of horse nomads turned up; the Turks (Seljuks, Kipchaks, Ottomans etc.), who were relatively socially acceptable as they were newly converted to Islam.

What they did was claw their way to the top of the heap, and their claim to power derived entirely from the authority that grows from horse, bow and sword. It had nothing to do with Islam.

So, the muslim world went from a political order where the Arab descendants of the Prophet had ruled them, to one where a bunch of violence prone Turks held the reins of power, and they didn't bother to stake their claim on much more than the fact that they had the potential for killing any opposition.

Of course the Turks eventually mellowed down a bit (killing all protesters in inconvenient), they also were very pious Muslims.
This bit everybody agreed upon: If the the ruler is a good, just and god-fearing man, his rule will prolly be decent, as he's unlikely to opress his subjects (much).
But that doesn't change the fact that his authority derives from the sword, and in no way is this confirmed by the tenets of Islam.

In order to make ruling easier, as all authority derived from their autocratic selves, the new lords came up with an innovative political organisation:
the slave state, but unlike the Greek and Roman slaves, these were placed at the pinnacle of society, charged with running the country on mandate from their ruler/owner. If they mucked up, he could have them summarily killed as his private posessions.

This is the kind of state the Egyptian Mameluks ran, just like the more famous Ottomans.

This order of things effectively and for centuries distanced the mass of common Muslims from any kind of direct political influence.

Their countries were run in an autocratic fashion, not because Islam tells them that's how it should be, but because in a situation when naked power couldn't really find any nice religious way of dressing itself up, it opted for cultivating a consistent form of "realism of power".

This is also why the modern form of political radical Islamism dreams about running countries on the basis of Islam:
It hasn't been done in a 1000 years.
(Not that they are very consistent or understand much about the Caliphate.)

And they can get people to listen because Islam itself contains a very high degree of political equality within the congregation of the faithful. The Caliph was originally the leader in prayer, and just the first among equals.
From a Muslim POV, Islam still contains an untapped democratic potential because of this.
That's why the rulers of the Arab world for a thousand years worked hard at cordoning this bit of Islam off from anything like political power.

The reason the Arab world is traditionally autrocratic isn't because Islam has been so, but rather because Islam has NEVER developed a great autocratic tradition.





My personal opinion is that is the radical Islamists ever get into power they will either mellow down and become ordinary politicians (i.e. democratisation), OR they will become a new religon-based autocracy, worse than any that has gone before.

As I pointed out above, the church did not oppose learning then, and it certainly doesn't oppose it now!

The Dark Ages were not caused by Christianity. Christianity had nothing to do with the fall of Rome, the invasions of the Vikings, or any of the other factors that made life miserable in the second half of the first millennium AD. If the state of scholarship was poor during that period, you can't blame the church for it - on the contrary, the most learned people of the time were churchmen, and they often bewailed the fact that general learning was so poor.
Exactly!

The Dark Ages invasions hit exactly the upper social strata of the Roman world that were the carriers of the tradition of learning.

They might already have been in decline due to the financial problems of the late Roman empire.

Cutting out the social elite, replacing it with a new one without the traditions of learning, meant the destruction of the infrastructure of classical philosophy.

In the west, the Church can be regarded as the piece of it that survived and consequently became the repository for what remained.

By comparison, the classical learning never disappeared in Byzantium.

Until it was churchmen at the beginning of the High Middle Ages who started rediscovering classical philosophy, Aristotle in particular.

Whatever way you try to slice and dice things, it was the Church that kept something alive and the Church that made the original, successful, effort of bringing back what had been lost.

The 16-17th c. conflicts about astronomy, medicine etc. weren't cause by the Church's animosity towards science and learning.

It was a conflict between integrated Aristotelian physics, medicine, cosmography (Aristotle, Theophrastus, Ptolemy, Galen, Euclid, Avicenna, Averroes) etc. — in itself a massive body of scientific observation and consistent theory — and a bunch of fragmentary new stuff (Copernicus, Vesalius, Gallilei) that people were coming up with, but which in time turned out to be the wave of the future. Religious doctrine wasn't seen to be one the line, yet.

The only way to interpret that situation as a conflict between religion/church and science/learning is if all the intellectual work invested in the Aristotelian world view is discounted as somehow implicitly un-scientific and un-learned, which is decidedly odd considering the amount put in, even if all involved are free to consider it erroneous in hindsight.

*the number is at least 2 million (some say 4) I'm sure about it
*ok baybers was merciless
*even if micromanagement was kept as it was but yet new islamic laws and a new muslim governer was always there from the begening and all muslims admit the effect of non arabian cultures this is not any bad but this doesn't mean muslims coudn't rule any other high civilization ?arabs before Islam had many cities like the ones in Egypt and syria and they were always in contact with them .My 'analogy' didn't mean that arabs learnt greek to speak with Egyptians but that's how Egyptians used to do things for centuries
*mo'ata was not exactly between romans and muslims .Prophet muhamad sent a messenger to the governer of a city called besra and he was killed by that governer
*and as for the crusaders yes I don't think their crusades was for relegious reasons at least this wasn't the main reason .even if u think palastine isn't richer they never stopped attacking the rest of Egypt and al cham(syria ,lebanon palastine and jordania )-and I do think these areas r richer than andalus - they needed this to look relegious to gain the help of the pope and the poor people and of byzantia of course

verbose secularism is the rule in every muslim country (except some) now

*the number is at least 2 million (some say 4) I'm sure about it


I think You're taking for granted numbers given by contemporary historians, and they are always exagerrated. We're not going to solve this problem here, though.


arabs before Islam had many cities like the ones in Egypt and syria and they were always in contact with them


What great cities were there in Arabia (apart from Yemen, perhaps)? Makka and Madina weren't metropolies.


*mo'ata was not exactly between romans and muslims .Prophet muhamad sent a messenger to the governer of a city called besra and he was killed by that governer


It's a legend. It may be true, may be not. Probably not, taking into account similar stories of conversion of Heraclius himself. We're not going to solve it here, though.


*and as for the crusaders yes I don't think their crusades was for relegious reasons at least this wasn't the main reason .even if u think palastine isn't richer they never stopped attacking the rest of Egypt and al cham(syria ,lebanon palastine and jordania )-and I do think these areas r richer than andalus - they needed this to look relegious to gain the help of the pope and the poor people and of byzantia of course


I disagree completely. Do You know how crusades started? By a plea of byzantine emperors, first Michael Dukas Parakopines, later Alexios Komnenos, for help from the west against muslims. Also, why did crusaders head for Palestine, if they could march for Damascus (Dimashq) from the beginning?
They didn't even conquer everything on they way, Tripoli (Tarablus ash-Sham) was conquered several years after Jerusalem, in 1105 if I recall (the siege started earlier, though). Of course, they attacked Egypt, but only later. And why should they not? It was after theocratic vision of rule over Jerusalem was abandoned and kingdom of Jerusalem was created. This state had its own goals and politics. It attacked its neighbour, if it had another one it'd be attacked :). There were often differences in opinion between crusaders and citizens of Outremer. Like during the second crusade, when crusaders forced through attack on Dimashq, which was Kingdom of Jerusalem's ally - only because Dimashq was mentioned in the Bible.
You can say that some of the crusaders went to Edessa (Ar-Ruha, Sanliurfa) during the first crusade, but only because they were invited by its ruler, Toros.
Of course, some of the later crusades were different, but it doesn't mean anything about the first one. And even the fourth crusade wanted to attack Egypt, owner of Palestine, and it would if not Venetians. The sack of Alexandria (Al-Iskandariyya) turned out to be a simple robbery raid, but that's it.

verbose secularism is the rule in every muslim country (except some) now
And that's a recent development.
As far as I can tell, Arab nationalism and other forms of modernising movements (Baathism) seemed to be the wave of the future in the revolutions of the 1950's.

And now they have trouble delivering the secular modernisation, including improved living standards, that was hoped for. Which factors in when the radical Islamists go about recruiting.

They didn't even conquer everything on they way, Tripoli (Tarablus ash-Sham) was conquered several years after Jerusalem, in 1105 if I recall (the siege started earlier, though).
Antioch...:scan:

so Exactly squonk you mean that crusades were for religious reasons ?? and Exactly to gain control of the holy city and cities in Bible ??

Of course the Crusades were fought for religious reasons (this doesn't mean they weren't fought for other reasons as well, of course). I don't know why some people have such difficulty in accepting that religion was a major motivation for many actions in the past, and must assume that anyone who claimed to be acting for religious motives must have been lying. People in the past didn't think like people do today. And there are plenty of actions taken even today for purely religious motives, of course.

so Exactly squonk you mean that crusades were for religious reasons ?? and Exactly to gain control of the holy city and cities in Bible ??

-to liberate the Holy Land
-to liberate lands inhabited by christians, allegedly persecuted
-to help Byzantine Empire against its muslim foes


Antioch...:scan:

Antioch was/is
- located on the way to Jerusalem
- the place where christians gained their name
- a sit of one of the first patriarchates, originally the third, later the fourth most important
- a former posession of Byzantine Empire (from before Mantzikert battle and even some years further; it was lost - again- to Muslims not even 20 years before being taken by crusaders)

to liberate lands inhabited by cristians ? where are these lands ?

to liberate lands inhabited by cristians ? where are these lands ?
In the 12thc.?
Egypt for instance.

The majority of Egyptians were still Christians, Kopts (which is actually the Arabisation of the Greek "Aegyptian").
Ruled by a Shiite dynasty, while most of their Muslim subjects were Sunni.

The Muslims became the majority in the 13th c., under the Mameluks. And Arabic became the majority language only in the 15th c.

Were there still Melchites in Egypt at this stage? Everyone assumes that all Egyptian Christians are or were Copts, which isn't true.

Melkites are present in Egypt even today as far as I know. And yes, Masri, christians constituted a majority in most ME at that time. Perhaps even in Iraq, which used to be christian before muslim conquest... Christians disappeared quickly only in North Africa, and even there they were present at this time.

The Christians remained a major element of society in Iraq until the fourteenth century, when the invasions of Tamerlane all but destroyed the church there.

Masr and all muslims here: kull 'amm wa antum bi-khayr.