Where were the Arabs before prophet Mohammed (the last massager of god), who came to complete the religion and not start something new as many people think?

Where were the Arabs before 530 A.D??? I tell you were they were in the desert acting like a much of Bedouins. The Arabs never had a civilization; they were never "civilized". However, the Africans had many civilizations such as: Kush, Nubia, Egypt, Babylon (in the time of Nimrod), Carthage, Abyssinia, and the Moors (Timbuktu and Mali) who by the way got Europe out of the dark ages. Arabs never spread Islam has the books mythologizes. The Arabs were only in Islam for 120 years and they left it. After Prohate Mohammed’s (may Allah be pleased with his soul) death, many of the Bedouins reverted back to polytheism, when Abu bakr (the caliph) had to suppress the revolt of some tribes in Hejaz and Nejd, of which the former rejected Islam and the latter refused to pay Zakkat (money for the poor); hence they both rejected Islam.

I ask you guys again what have the Arabs done in history??? :confused:

Severely warned for trolling the Arabs and blatant falsehoods. If you don't know anything, don't make statements about them. - XIII

they traded incense, and also raided the Roman and Persian Empires.

The Arabs defeated the Persian Sassinids and Byzantines, and spread Islam widely over that area. After that they interbred with the natives a lot, so that those areas are considered Arabs.

So, in other words, they only kicked off Islam. ;)

A few may have rejected it but they were the primarily responsible for doing so.

Or do you only mean Arabs before 600 CE?

I don't see how a muslim can have such a hostile attitude torwads the arabs. Mohammed was an arab, after all.

Neither Timbuktu nor Mali were Moorish.

Where were the Arabs before prophet Mohammed (the last massager of god), who came to complete the religion and not start something new as many people think?

Where were the Arabs before 530 A.D??? I tell you were they were in the desert acting like a much of Bedouins. The Arabs never had a civilization; they were never "civilized". However, the Africans had many civilizations such as: Kush, Nubia, Egypt, Babylon (in the time of Nimrod), Carthage, Abyssinia, and the Moors (Timbuktu and Mali) who by the way got Europe out of the dark ages. Arabs never spread Islam has the books mythologizes. The Arabs were only in Islam for 120 years and they left it. After Prohate Mohammed’s (may Allah be pleased with his soul) death, many of the Bedouins reverted back to polytheism, when Abu bakr (the caliph) had to suppress the revolt of some tribes in Hejaz and Nejd, of which the former rejected Islam and the latter refused to pay Zakkat (money for the poor); hence they both rejected Islam.

:

This is absolute nonsense, bordering, BTW, on racism.

1) The Arabs had several pagan civilizations.
2) Arabs did spread Islam. Islam started as a purely Arabic religion, and spread to Persian and Roman territories thereafter by conquest
3) Carthage was a mediterranean civilization. There is little evidence for extensive contacts between Carthage and (sub-saharan) Africa, except the evidence for Phoenicians in general. Egypt had connections with Africa, but I think it would be stretching the evidence to breaking point to actually call it "African"
4) Moors had roughly the same attitude to Black Africans that their neighbours in Iberia had.
5) The Moors can hardly be credited with getting "Europe out of the dark ages". The Dark Ages, as a period, end before the Moors can have any impact. Ultimately, European ingenuitey and access to the cultural traditions of Greece, the Middle East, China and India, as well as their own Germanic, Celtic, Slavic and Roman traditions, enabled Europeans overtake other civilizations after the 14th century.

we dont agree very often HB, we shoud do this "moor" often :)

I LIKe the civs of black africa far more than arabic civilization

I don't see how a muslim can have such a hostile attitude torwads the arabs. Mohammed was an arab, after all.

Well, Jesus was a Jew, and christians aren't always known for their Judeophilia!

we dont agree very often HB, we shoud do this "moor" often :)

I LIKe the civs of black africa far more than arabic civilizationLiking another region better is far from denying the existance of Arabian civilization.

As for saying nothing came from Arabia might I remind you that about half the world worships a religion from there.

Also might I add there is a massive series of civliations there after all parts of Arabia are actually called "the cradle of civilization"

Lots of great ideas in mathematics came from the Arabs.

What I wanna know is when is everyone going to cut the bull-crap about trying to show the superiority of their culture and go back to doing what's really important, improving thier culture istead of petty insulting of that of others!

This is absolute nonsense, bordering, BTW, on racism.
5) The Moors can hardly be credited with getting "Europe out of the dark ages". The Dark Ages, as a period, end before the Moors can have any impact. Ultimately, European ingenuitey and access to the cultural traditions of Greece, the Middle East, China and India, as well as their own Germanic, Celtic, Slavic and Roman traditions, enabled Europeans overtake other civilizations after the 14th century.

Not the Moors, necessarily, but Islam can be credited with it. Wtihout Islamic intrusions into Sicily, and Christian Crusades, there would have been no access to Roman culture, no Rennasaince. Islam held the key for Christians to rediscover the secrets of old. And while the Islamic world were nearly conquered by the Mongols, the Christian world was situated far away. It is far more a matter of geography and historical movements than to any "Western Ingenuity".

In short, the West took what Islam built and improved upon it while at the same time Islam was too busy fighting the Mongols to improve, and afterward, Christians still absorbed more while Islam had its main cultural centers wrecked.

Western "tradition and culture" had nothing to do with their success, it was luck, the luck of having the Mulims as neighbors, the luck of being advanced enough already to absorb what Islam had learned easily enough, and lastly, the luck of being just a little farther from the barbarians than the Arab World.



And I think this thread will be shortly moved to History.

Not the Moors, necessarily, but Islam can be credited with it. Wtihout Islamic intrusions into Sicily, and Christian Crusades, there would have been no access to Roman culture, no Rennasaince. Islam held the key for Christians to rediscover the secrets of old. And while the Islamic world were nearly conquered by the Mongols, the Christian world was situated far away. It is far more a matter of geography and historical movements than to any "Western Ingenuity".


1) Not really. The Dark Ages is usually a historical period which ends with the Carolingians...but it is actually the invention of modern scholars hostile to the early medieval Europe.

2) No access to Roman culture? Western Christendom was the successor of Roman culture, and preserved its literature almost in its entirety without outside help.

3) Russia was conquered by the Mongols, yet emerged to be much stronger and more sophisticated than Islamic societies like Egypt and Morocco, which weren't conquered by the Mongols.

4) While Islamic scholars were dismissing the Mongols as barbarians, enthusiastic Fransiscans like William of Rubruck and John Pian de Carpini, and merchants like Marco Polo used the opportunity of a Eurasian Empire to travel the Old World and report the customs of all societies...not just Christian ones (c/f Ibn Batutta).




In short, the West took what Islam built and improved upon it while at the same time Islam was too busy fighting the Mongols to improve, and afterward, Christians still absorbed more while Islam had its main cultural centers wrecked.
.

5) Islam is a religion. The West certainly took nothing from the Koran or any other Islamic religious text. So, I don't know where you're getting this idea from.

What you might be meaning are the Graeco-Roman and Persian traditions, some of which survived Islamic conquest and came to the West. Or the Indian, Central Asian and Chinese traditions which passed through, like silk did, to the west.

It is often said by people with this agenda that the Islamic culture preserved all the Greek classics. That, of course, isn't true. The Eastern Empire was actually the main source of classical Greek tradition. Only a very small number of texts, if that, survive solely to Islamic preservation. In fact, Islamic rulers are still requesting Greek texts from Byzantium in the 15th century. That aside, the Roman West itself preserved just as many Graeco-Roman texts as the part conquered by the Arabs.


Western "tradition and culture" had nothing to do with their success, it was luck, the luck of having the Mulims as neighbors, the luck of being advanced enough already to absorb what Islam had learned easily enough, and lastly, the luck of being just a little farther from the barbarians than the Arab World.


7) Having the Muslims as neighbours didn't help any more than having the neighbours they would have had if the Muslims hadn't conquered these areas. Middle Eastern civilzation acted as an occassional stimulus, but was hardly the cause. The Muslims had more initial advantages than the Christians...but the Christians ended up being the successful ones. Why?

8) Medieval boat-building, masonry, armoury, weaponry (in certain areas), commercial practices (by the 11th century), horsemanship (since the 10th century) and military self-sufficiency were superior to their medieval Islamic equivalents.

High Medieval Europe had a strong literate class too, the churchmen, who developed a secular orientation due to the rise of the Mendicants. These had nothing to do with Islam. Simultaneously, legal traditions emerged in Europe, which, along with the Mendicants, led to the widespread establishment of Universities. These legal traditions lay in the Roman Empire, the Roman church, and Germanic tradition. Islamic civilization had no bearing.

This is not to deny that civilizational traditions controlled by Muslims had any effect. It's just enough to repute your ridiculous statement that "Western "tradition and culture" had nothing to do with their success".

9) The influence of politically correct pseudo-intellectuals, esp. prominent in the media, has made your view of history popular. This is allied to a post-Renaissance contempt for medieval Europe in western culture, and is furnished by the general ignorance of the European middle ages in modern western culture.

It's a real shame, because High Medieval Europe is one of the most dynamic societies in Eurasia and deserves more attention. :goodjob:

...the Africans had many civilizations such as: Kush, Nubia, Egypt, Babylon (in the time of Nimrod), Carthage, Abyssinia, and the Moors (Timbuktu and Mali)...

Hang on a moment, here. By what definition do you group these peoples as "Africans"? Sharing the same continent has no mystical significance bonding otherwise alien groups together. Those peoples have no particular cultural link either, nor a racial one (since at least four of those were populated by caucasoid Semites). Carthage, for example, was founded by emigrants from Canaan. The Moors have nothing to do with Mali - they were an Islamic people composed of a mix of Arabs and Berbers. I do like the way you forward an Arabic group (especially one with a significant population in Europe) as an example of great African civilisation while denouncing Arabs, though.

Perhaps any resident Arabs should be asking you to explain the historical significance of the Bantu.

Out of curiosity - how old are you, anyway? You don't argue as if you've thought your ideology through.

Waitaminit! Is "Hamatic" supposed to be a form of "Hamitic"?

"It will suffice here to evoke a few glorious names without contemporary equivalents in the West: Jabir ibn Haiyan, al-Kindi, al-Khwarizmi, al-Fargani, al-Razi, Thabit ibn Qurra, al-Battani, Hunain ibn Ishaq, al-Farabi, Ibrahim ibn Sinan, al-Masudi, al-Tabari, Abul Wafa, 'Ali ibn Abbas, Abul Qasim, Ibn al-Jazzar, al-Biruni, Ibn Sina, Ibn Yunus, al-Kashi, Ibn al-Haitham, 'Ali Ibn 'Isa al-Ghazali, al-zarqab, Omar Khayyam. A magnificent array of names which it would not be difficult to extend. If anyone tells you that the Middle Ages were scientifically sterile, just quote these men to him, all of whom flourished within a short period, 750 to 1100 A.D." - George Sarton

Look 'em up.

This is absolute nonsense, bordering, BTW, on racism.

Quite


Egypt had connections with Africa, but I think it would be stretching the evidence to breaking point to actually call it "African".

Confused. As all of ancient Egypt was in the continent of Africa, I think by definition Egypt was an African civilisation. Although one can of course quibble whether the Sinai peninsular is African or Asian?

Well, Jesus was a Jew, and christians aren't always known for their Judeophilia!

True, but it's still a "not very smart" atittude.

Quite

Confused. As all of ancient Egypt was in the continent of Africa, I think by definition Egypt was an African civilisation. Although one can of course quibble whether the Sinai peninsular is African or Asian?

Well, Africa has three meanings. 1) What is now an island, stretching from the Mediterranean to the Cape; 2) Culturally and geobiologically, it means the area of the former Africa, south of the Sahara desert. This area was called "Ethiopia" in Europe, "Beled es-Sudan" in Arabic and "Guinea" in Berber.
3) If you do Roman history, it is the name of an area roughly extending to modern Tunisia.

In the ancient world, the closest they had to the concept of "Africa" (1), was "Libya" - which did not include Egypt (which was in "Asia").

Hamatic Babylon is exploiting the ambiguity between definitions (1) and (2) for his own ideological purposes.

Still doesn't explain by what logic, or lack thereof, he characterizes Babylon, in "the time of Nimrod", as African.

5) Islam is a religion. The West certainly took nothing from the Koran or any other Islamic religious text. So, I don't know where you're getting this idea from.The notion of holy war in medieval Catholicism has been explained as a loan from Islam. Is there any particular reason to reject this?

The notion of holy war in medieval Catholicism has been explained as a loan from Islam. Is there any particular reason to reject this?

I guess this is correct to a certain extent.

But Islam itself emerged during, and just after, the Romano-Persian wars between Heraclius (often called "First Crusader") and Khusro II, in which the practice of holy war awesomely came into being. Each side here claimed to have their own god on side, the christian one for the Romans and Zoroastrian one for the Persians. This war involved the Arab allies of either side, the Roman-allied christian Ghazanids and Persian-controlled Zoroastrian Lakhmids. With a knowledge of this contemporary history, it's easy to see why holy war was so important a concept to early moslems.

1) Not really. The Dark Ages is usually a historical period which ends with the Carolingians...but it is actually the invention of modern scholars hostile to the early medieval Europe.

That really depends on your definition of Dark Ages, doesn't it? So I can't reasonably argue with you here.

2) No access to Roman culture? Western Christendom was the successor of Roman culture, and preserved its literature almost in its entirety without outside help.

However, Western Christiandom was a very insular and stratified society. Very few had any access to these traditions. Indeed, for example, Christians refused to take baths often, a true hallmark of Roman culture, because they feared they would be called Muslims. That's just one example, and a rather silly one, but it does emphasize the fact that Islam was much more in tune with Roman Values and Culture.

3) Russia was conquered by the Mongols, yet emerged to be much stronger and more sophisticated than Islamic societies like Egypt and Morocco, which weren't conquered by the Mongols.

This has no bearing in real life. The Russians were set back years by this, and were indeed much less advanced than Morroco or Egypt. "More Sophisticated"? No, they had very little to offer, they were merly a small collection of cities that managed to unify a large area and thus become a major power. At this time, the largest Russian cities were Kiev and Novgorod, which were smaller, and likely less rich than most of the great Muslim cities. Russia was not a major world power until after the unification by Muscovy, and even then lagged far behind in technology.

4) While Islamic scholars were dismissing the Mongols as barbarians, enthusiastic Fransiscans like William of Rubruck and John Pian de Carpini, and merchants like Marco Polo used the opportunity of a Eurasian Empire to travel the Old World and report the customs of all societies...not just Christian ones (c/f Ibn Batutta).

However, they absorbed little, apparently, as Marco Polo seemed more intent on telling his readers a good story than an accurate account of the East. Indeed, much more was absorbed by Islam than by Europe; Islam, after all, got gunpowder and such things as that first.

5) Islam is a religion. The West certainly took nothing from the Koran or any other Islamic religious text. So, I don't know where you're getting this idea from.

They certainly took nothing out of the Koran, but their entire society (or near enough) seems to me to be based on the Bible and its values. If Islam was held back by its devotion to the Koran, then even more so was Christianity held back by the Bible, for Islam was a much more liberal religion in those days (Modern soceities have no bearing on this. Islam was a much more liberal relgion, being founded much later and still in it's dynamic stage of development).

What you might be meaning are the Graeco-Roman and Persian traditions, some of which survived Islamic conquest and came to the West. Or the Indian, Central Asian and Chinese traditions which passed through, like silk did, to the west.

It is often said by people with this agenda that the Islamic culture preserved all the Greek classics. That, of course, isn't true. The Eastern Empire was actually the main source of classical Greek tradition. Only a very small number of texts, if that, survive solely to Islamic preservation. In fact, Islamic rulers are still requesting Greek texts from Byzantium in the 15th century. That aside, the Roman West itself preserved just as many Graeco-Roman texts as the part conquered by the Arabs.

Then it is quite ironic that the West translated many of their best examples of Greek literature from Islam, isn't it? Islam inherited the great cultural centers of the Empire; the East was the most properous and most vital part of the Empire.

7) Having the Muslims as neighbours didn't help any more than having the neighbours they would have had if the Muslims hadn't conquered these areas. Middle Eastern civilzation acted as an occassional stimulus, but was hardly the cause. The Muslims had more initial advantages than the Christians...but the Christians ended up being the successful ones. Why?

Why? Because of a combination of factors of luck. Not least being far enough from the Mongols to survive their attacks, also the Reformation and Rennasaince, neither of which were preordained, and indeed, the latter spurred forth from the ideas that the Crusaders brought back to their homeland. It has nothing to do with the West being more innovative.

8) Medieval boat-building, masonry, armoury, weaponry (in certain areas), commercial practices (by the 11th century), horsemanship (since the 10th century) and military self-sufficiency were superior to their medieval Islamic equivalents.

I'm sorry, but that is simply not true.

Boat building I grant you (mainly because the West had the Atlantic coast. Indeed, in the Indian Ocean Islam was a major naval power for quite a while), but the rest are rather silly to claim.

Their Masonry was no more devoloped than Islam was, indeed, most of the best architecture in those days was in Islam, not in the West. Islam had the airy mosques, the West had heavyset gothic cathedrals. Neither really surpassed the other in defensive works.

Armoury is again hard to argue. I see no reason why the West's was better.

Weaponry, Islam had much of a lead on the West. They had gunpowder first, they had better steelworking abilities until much later in the period. They did not have the Crossbow, but note that the west copied the trebuchet from Islam (as did the Mongols, ironically). The only real area where the west was ahead was the crossbow (and perhaps a few others). Elsewhere, they were even or Islam was ahead.

High Medieval Europe had a strong literate class too, the churchmen, who developed a secular orientation due to the rise of the Mendicants. These had nothing to do with Islam. Simultaneously, legal traditions emerged in Europe, which, along with the Mendicants, led to the widespread establishment of Universities. These legal traditions lay in the Roman Empire, the Roman church, and Germanic tradition. Islamic civilization had no bearing.

Indeed, but they were not ahead of Islam at that time, either. Islam also had many scholars, near universities (their mosques sometimes served as this, just as churches did for the west), legal traditions based off the Romans...

This is not to deny that civilizational traditions controlled by Muslims had any effect. It's just enough to repute your ridiculous statement that "Western "tradition and culture" had nothing to do with their success".

It had very little to do with their success. Much more on their side was geography and luck. The geography that put them on the atlantic and far from the hordes of barbarians, the luck of having the Reformation succeed, the Rennasaince, etc.

9) The influence of politically correct pseudo-intellectuals, esp. prominent in the media, has made your view of history popular. This is allied to a post-Renaissance contempt for medieval Europe in western culture, and is furnished by the general ignorance of the European middle ages in modern western culture.

It is not politically correct. I simply recognize that Islam had a much more influential part on Western Culture than many would like to believe.

It's a real shame, because High Medieval Europe is one of the most dynamic societies in Eurasia and deserves more attention. :goodjob:

Western culture was indeed much more than what many historians would like to admit. However, it was destined to rule the world. It was very much a factor of luck, not culture. Islam played a great role, through the influences of the Crusaders coming back with their ideas.

Islam was far in advance of the West and indeed there are many examples of this.

After conquering Spain, Islam developed the most advanced and sophisticated area in all of Europe. The flourishing markets and traditions of Islam produced a bustling society far richer than most in Europe and with cities that put everything in Europe besides perhaps Paris to shame. Indeed, France could have been part of this cornucopia, but the Franks finally managed to halt the Islamic advance in a very bloody battle that could have turned either way. Poitiers was another lucky break for the West, but perhaps not so lucky, when you look at how much better it could have been under Islamic rule.

Constantinople, which had been dying a slow, painful death under the management of Roman traditions, flourished when captured by Islam and became the largest city in all of Europe in a very short time. The Ottoman Empire thereafter conquered much of Eastern Europe and indeed was only halted by a very large number of Christians, while the Ottomans had been forced by the bad weather to leave their essential seige artillery behind. How could the west have done so much if Islam had succeeded? It was very lucky for the west that the year of 1529 was so rainy and muddy that the Ottomans could not bear down with full effectivness.



In short, the feudalistic countries of Medival Europe had little to offer compared with Islam; In terms of health, education, and technology Islam was far ahead and indeed equal even after the bursting of the Reformation, even after the riches of the Americas poured into the West's coffers. It took until the Enlightenment, when the west had far more monetary wealth and land then Islam, for them to finally fully pull ahead.

In regards to the rise of the western Europe to world supremacy, I refer you all to "Guns, Germs and Steel."

That really depends on your definition of Dark Ages, doesn't it? So I can't reasonably argue with you here.

.

The key point is that “Dark Ages” is a meaningless piece of rhetoric.



However, Western Christiandom was a very insular and stratified society. Very few had any access to these traditions. Indeed, for example, Christians refused to take baths often, a true hallmark of Roman culture, because they feared they would be called Muslims. That's just one example, and a rather silly one, but it does emphasize the fact that Islam was much more in tune with Roman Values and Culture.



Italy, Frankia and Visigothic Spain operated under the bureaucracy of the Roman Empire into the 8th and 9th centuries. The West had the military structure of the Late Roman Empire, its language and many of its customs. Urbanism survived in Europe, just as it did in the East, where it had previously existed under Roman rule (Rhineland, northern Italy, and Spain).





This has no bearing in real life. The Russians were set back years by this, and were indeed much less advanced than Morocco or Egypt. "More Sophisticated"? No, they had very little to offer, they were merly a small collection of cities that managed to unify a large area and thus become a major power. At this time, the largest Russian cities were Kiev and Novgorod, which were smaller, and likely less rich than most of the great Muslim cities. Russia was not a major world power until after the unification by Muscovy, and even then lagged far behind in technology.


Well, I disagree. But here, the key point is that the Mongols can’t be used as an excuse for “falling behind the West”. Russia was conquered by the Mongols…Egypt and Morocco weren’t!



However, they absorbed little, apparently, as Marco Polo seemed more intent on telling his readers a good story than an accurate account of the East. Indeed, much more was absorbed by Islam than by Europe; Islam, after all, got gunpowder and such things as that first.
.

Nevertheless, the accounts of two Franciscans William of Rubruck and John Pian de Carpine are widely regarded as the most inquisitive and objective accounts of Eurasia in the Mongol period.

Marco Polo, and related authors, formed part of a western obsession which arose in the 13th century and led directly to the voyages of discovery. It is notable that it did not do so for the Moslems, who were disdainful of all non-Muslim civilizations…including China, which was far superior to Islamic civilization.




They certainly took nothing out of the Koran, but their entire society (or near enough) seems to me to be based on the Bible and its values. If Islam was held back by its devotion to the Koran, then even more so was Christianity held back by the Bible, for Islam was a much more liberal religion in those days (Modern soceities have no bearing on this. Islam was a much more liberal relgion, being founded much later and still in it's dynamic stage of development).
.

So, if they didn’t, then it’s wrong to speak of “Islam bringing the West out of the Dark Ages”.

We’re always told that Islam was “more tolerant”. Well, initially this may have been the case (Islam would not have survived if it weren’t), but Moslems were notoriously intolerant of pagans, and used religion as an excuse to attack the “House of War”.

The West was not “held back” by the bible. It was held back by its own religiosity, which happened to be based on the Bible. Of course, as you are blissfully unaware…the ruler aristocracies of the West had little access to the Bible, as it was not produced in their own vernacular.






Then it is quite ironic that the West translated many of their best examples of Greek literature from Islam, isn't it? Islam inherited the great cultural centers of the Empire; the East was the most properous and most vital part of the Empire.
.

Like what?




Why? Because of a combination of factors of luck. Not least being far enough from the Mongols to survive their attacks, also the Reformation and Rennasaince, neither of which were preordained, and indeed, the latter spurred forth from the ideas that the Crusaders brought back to their homeland. It has nothing to do with the West being more innovative.
.

The Moors were just as far from the Mongols as the English or French. The Egyptians were just as far as the Germans. The Iranians, like the Russians in the West, were conquered by the Mongols. This “Mongol Explanation” is laughable. I’m afraid you need to come up with some good causative arguments if you want to convince me.






I'm sorry, but that is simply not true.

Boat building I grant you (mainly because the West had the Atlantic coast. Indeed, in the Indian Ocean Islam was a major naval power for quite a while), but the rest are rather silly to claim.

Their Masonry was no more devoloped than Islam was, indeed, most of the best architecture in those days was in Islam, not in the West. Islam had the airy mosques, the West had heavyset gothic cathedrals. Neither really surpassed the other in defensive works.

Armoury is again hard to argue. I see no reason why the West's was better.

Weaponry, Islam had much of a lead on the West. They had gunpowder first, they had better steelworking abilities until much later in the period. They did not have the Crossbow, but note that the west copied the trebuchet from Islam (as did the Mongols, ironically). The only real area where the west was ahead was the crossbow (and perhaps a few others). Elsewhere, they were even or Islam was ahead.
.

Silly? Well, whatever. I’ll just assume you don’t know anything until you show otherwise. I’d like arguments please.

You seem to grant me a lot, given that you think “that is simply not true” :)

Why did the Ottomans use German and Italian weapon smiths to make their artillery?


Why did Islamic civilization remain dependent on barbarian Turkic horseman and Moorish highlanders to for military purposes, while the west developed more and more sophisticated infantry specialists?

Why did backward 11th century Europe construct the largest enclosed space on earth (Cluny)? Why did 12th century Westerners take Constantinople when Islamic soldiers had been failed at this for centuries?

Why, from the 11th century onwards is the Mediterranean, previously an “Islamic Lake” empty of ships because of a few small Italian cities?

The fact is, for all of “Islam’s” supposed superiority, Islam vis-à-vis the West was on the retreat from the 10th to the 14th centuries. It revived because of a Westernizing Islamic state called the Ottoman Empire.



Indeed, but they were not ahead of Islam at that time, either. Islam also had many scholars, near universities (their mosques sometimes served as this, just as churches did for the west), legal traditions based off the Romans...
.

Well, “Islam” as you keep calling it, had scholars and still has them. But the fact is, from at least the 15th century onwards, the West was producing more and more practical advances that he Middle East simply couldn’t match.



It had very little to do with their success. Much more on their side was geography and luck. The geography that put them on the atlantic and far from the hordes of barbarians, the luck of having the Reformation succeed, the Rennasaince, etc.
.

Like I said, you’ve failed to produce any argument showing that the Mongols were important.

It’s a bit disingenuous to call “the Reformation”, “Renaissance” and those things “luck”, whilst not saying the same about equivalent Islamic cultural movements.



It is not politically correct. I simply recognize that Islam had a much more influential part on Western Culture than many would like to believe.
.

Who? Everyone I ever hear who brings up the subject says something along the lines of yourself. There may have been ignorance about Islamic civilization in the 80s…but not now.








Western culture was indeed much more than what many historians would like to admit. However, it was destined to rule the world. It was very much a factor of luck, not culture. Islam played a great role, through the influences of the Crusaders coming back with their ideas.
.

I just wish people would stop importing modern political issues into medieval history. It’s very annoying. The fact is, all medieval Eurasian civilizations were sophisticated, and all had advantages and disadvantages compared with their neighbors. China and “Islam” were much the most advanced in terms of urbanism right into the early modern period. China had the most sophisticated bureaucracy. As for technology, well, there were few significant gaps between civilizations until the 16th century, when Portuguese ships cleaned the Indian Ocean of “Islamic” ships, and western goods flooded the “Silk Road” undermining the 1500 year old commercial system of Eurasia.

The key difference, I think, was mindset. Westerners were conservative, but had burning curiosities about other civilizations and the world in general. Islamic civilization just didn’t possess those qualities. Read the accounts of westerners on the Silk Road, and compare them with Chinese and Islamic writers. Or read “the Muslim Discovery of Europe” to get an idea of the vast difference in mindset.




After conquering Spain, Islam developed the most advanced and sophisticated area in all of Europe. The flourishing markets and traditions of Islam produced a bustling society far richer than most in Europe and with cities that put everything in Europe besides perhaps Paris to shame. Indeed, France could have been part of this cornucopia, but the Franks finally managed to halt the Islamic advance in a very bloody battle that could have turned either way. Poitiers was another lucky break for the West, but perhaps not so lucky, when you look at how much better it could have been under Islamic rule.
.


The Visigothic kingdom of Spain was the most sophisticated civilization in Europe before the barbarian Berber armies conquered it, and embraced its culture. It works both ways you know, and you can’t, as you would like to, have your cake and eat it too.

Poitiers was a minor skirmish, which has been exaggerated by all those who wish to find a “turning-point” in the advance of Islam.

Frankia, unlike Spain, was heavily militarized. Conquest by Moslem powers was pretty much impossible at that point.




Constantinople, which had been dying a slow, painful death under the management of Roman traditions, flourished when captured by Islam and became the largest city in all of Europe in a very short time. The Ottoman Empire thereafter conquered much of Eastern Europe and indeed was only halted by a very large number of Christians, while the Ottomans had been forced by the bad weather to leave their essential seige artillery behind. How could the west have done so much if Islam had succeeded? It was very lucky for the west that the year of 1529 was so rainy and muddy that the Ottomans could not bear down with full effectivness. .

Actually, Constantinople was a flourishing metropolis until the sack of the city by the 4th Crusade in 1204.

The e Ottoman siege of Vienna was not an attempt at a conquest of Europe; it was a strategic move against the Charles V of Germany. The Ottomans had no chance of a more general conquest.





In short, the feudalistic countries of Medival Europe had little to offer compared with Islam; In terms of health, education, and technology Islam was far ahead and indeed equal even after the bursting of the Reformation, even after the riches of the Americas poured into the West's coffers. It took until the Enlightenment, when the west had far more monetary wealth and land then Islam, for them to finally fully pull ahead.

Well, that’s definitely not true. 17th/ and 18th century Europe contained a diversity of goods and a sophistication of manufactured goods (clocks, telescopes, cannons, guns, glasses, etc) which the middle east could not rival. I’m afraid the Enlightenment is hopelessly too late. Not even the most passionate Islamic fanatic would put it as late as the 18th century. I’d put it round about the 13th century!

In regards to the rise of the western Europe to world supremacy, I refer you all to "Guns, Germs and Steel."

I'm reading it just now. I'm not sure what you mean to imply though. :confused:

I believe I disagree with you too much too continue further debate without elevating my blood pressure to an absurdly high level. So I discontinue while leaving a few points:

Islam was not solely responsible for bringing the West out of stasis. But I think little else can explain the sudden cultural flowering after the Crusades.

The Mongols, while you believe did not have much of an impact... They did, simply put. They rampaged through Persia and Mesopotamia, sacked cities, killed millions, destroyed most importantly the enormus irrigation system in the area transforming it into a desert. They plunged a dagger into the heart of Islam. Before the Mongols came, Islam was culturally vibrant and strong, afterwards, like Russia, it turned inward and became xenophobic and hostile to outsiders. Interestingly enough, so did China, so Europe was the only place that had a chance at world domination that was free of the Mongol threat. That says something to me, but apparently not to you.

Also, Islam was ceratinly not behind in the 13th century, I would put the point where they fell dangerously behind at about the 17th century. Before then, in the 16th century they were equal, before that, equal or ahead.

But my points differ so much from yours I see no point in continuing.

But my points differ so much from yours I see no point in continuing.

Fine, but I thought the purpose of discussion was to overcome this sort of thing. ;)

Being a portuguese/canadian and having lived in Portugal and travelled extensively through it.. i can say im fascinated in the history of the interaction between the Muslims and Christians, especially on the iberian peninsula...

the Portuguese reconquista is of especial interest to me... anyway my point is that in the Iberian context you simply can't easily separate Muslim from Christian and oppose them against each other... the Muslims did control the majority of the peninsula for hundreds of years, introducing agricultural, architectural innovations and all manner of sophistication... and their culture on the iberian peninsula with it's combination of Christian, Jewish, Mozarab and Moorish elements is fascinating to study... and their descendents are still alive on the Iberian peninsula today... anyone who visits Spain or Portugal will see this. If you walk through Lisbon there are certain old quarters which feel like something out of Morroco... In the context of the Iberian peninsula, the Moors conquered , ruled, built their civilization, and eventually were conquered by Christians in turn and many became Christian themselves, but no one could deny they contributed profoundly to the history of the peninsula and are indeed still alive in it today

Any study of Iberian history between the 800's to the 1400's certainly will have to examine the profound impact of Islam carefully... and certainly between the 800's to the 1200's the Muslims controlled a good deal of the peninsula... it's interesting to note that the first two global empires of the modern era, first the Portuguese and then the Spanish, emerged from the Iberian peninsula.. who knows, perhaps that was in part due to its rich past of arab, christian and jewish cultures on the peninsula??

Moved to History.

I'll analyse this thread extensively later. :evil:

I tend to share North Kings view of the Islamic / Arabic world in the Middle Ages.

They were socially and scientifically much more advanced than their Western counterparts. Kaiser Friedrich II. especially was rather open to Islamic influences.


A question really worthwhile to discuss is rather:

Why did the Arab world fall back? When did this happen? I believe that the division between church and state played a major part that allowed rapid scientific progress. Industrialization took place all over Europe, but not in the Islamic world. They did not even have many manufactures in the Osman Empire at this pont of time.

The Arab world is still divided in many factions and - even if it sounds arrogant - remained in the Middle Ages in terms of society, they were even more open and advanced in the time of the Crusades, I dare to say. The few nations that are rather advanced still have a huge problem with the conservative views of their own population. Take a look at Ghaddafi, he thinks that females are more intelligent than males and really strengthens the rights of women in his country. This is rather uncommon (please see this as no praise for Ghaddafi, but I will not deny that he has some modern views, too).

I want to ask: Why did fundamentalism become so popular, and why is this harshest and strictest form of their religion getting more and more followers?

Fine, but I thought the purpose of discussion was to overcome this sort of thing. ;)

Dude, when you can't even accept that the Mongols by olbiterating the populations of Iran and many other cities such as Baghdad isn't a valid reason why learning in the Islamic World was hindered, what point is there trying to re-educate you.

The destruction that the Mongols brought, vastly change the societies in place in the Middle-East and what with the increasing domination of the Turk, what chance that the progressive character of the East would remain intact?

Dude, it's your decision to read or not to read what I say. :p
I merely pointed out that the Mongols affected parts of the West, as well as parts of the East; while it left parts of both the East and West unaffected. If you wish to "re-educate" me (cringes) with more than soundbites and vague, flawed generalizations, then that will depend on your education, will, ability and grasp of the truth.

As it stands now, I've summited a mountain of what are, in all truth, hastily drawn arguments and examples which as of yet have found little response. On the other hand, you have done little more than restate a previous argument. What I want to hear is not demeaning nonsense like "what is the point in trying to reeducate you"; rather, I want to hear causative arguments, illustrated with examples, that actually will educate me rather than inspire contempt. ;)

What do you want, a point by point analysis of the Mongols campaign and how they ruined the Middle East?

I agree with wat North King said.

And the reason the Western Crusaders in the 12 century captured Constantinople was because they had a "real" Emperor on their side, secondly the people of Constantinople didn't like the Emperor already on the throne, and thirdly the city was unprepared for an assault by the Crusaders.

Actually, they captured Constantinople in the 13th century. But that's neither here nor there.

@North King: I already know the damage the Mongols did to parts of the middle east. I don't need a computer game forum to tell me that. I want to hear convincing arguments that the Mongol invasion were the most important reason for the later imbalance between Christendom and the Islamic World.

Constantinople was only captured 2 times?!!!! Once by Venetians and their mercenary crusaders. The other time by the Turks in 1453...

Guns Germs and Steel is all about why cultures gain and lose the edge of technology and knowledge. Prior to 1450 China and the Islamic world were the world leaders in technology and learning. They exported both. Western Europe was a net receiver.
The tipping point came between 1450 and 1500.

China had been essentially unified for almost 2,000 years and just as China was reaching out way beyond her borders with treasure fleets, the centralized power of the government shut down exploration, just like she abandoned mechanical spinning machines and clock making in the 14th C. On the verge of an industrial revolution china shut down innovation. She lost the edge.

In a very fragmented Europe countries competed for power and the emerging capitalist middle class began utilizing and improving technology from China and the middle east. One word from the Chinese Emperor and no ships sailed from port. When Columbus was turned down by one country he moved on: France, Portugal, then Spain (actually his fifth attempt). Once the gold began to flow everyone wanted to get in on the act and the race was on. Ships, navigation, weapons all improved in the rush for gold. Competition fed itself in all areas of society and Europe never looked back. Islam had no driving force for change and fell further and further behind until they reinvented terrorism.

Islam had no driving force for change and fell further and further behind until they reinvented terrorism.

An interesting explanation. The "conquest" of the new world was indeed a motor of invention and economic struggle.

The Arabs, what did they do in this time? To say a year 1450/1492 to 1700 and ongoing, what happened in the Arab world?

Honestly, I would have to look up what happend there. If you take a look at Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_World , you will notice that there is next to nothing told in this article about this timeframe. You will find other articles regarding the crusades, about Europe's developement, but not much about that of the Islamic world.

BTW, I just wondered how terrorism and hate of other nations/people can be a source of innovation and developement. It does unite people in hate, they work together to destroy, but I just think how this can create political unity or progress in any way... I think it is a not very promising way, my personal belief it is that it bears rather the germ of destruction.

Longasc, the reason you find little on Arabia on that time frame is because the Arabs started to do nothing from the time of the early Abbasids. It reached the pinnacle from 1450 to 1700. That is a long time after the Mongols came, so they did not do as much damage to the Arabs as they would like to believe. To be perfectly honest, Islamic civilisation has been all but dominated by Persians, Turks, Moors and sub-Saharan Africans.

Hm. From an european point of view, it is incredible that nothing really important happened to and changed a society in such a large timeframe.

Arab Stagnation since the Middle Ages? Stagnation often ends in even developing backwards.

Who agrees that muslim women were perhaps socially more important and influential than nowadays?


I know a lot of lazy persons, but a society that does not change at all, no revolutions, no major improvements... ugh.

BTW, I just wondered how terrorism and hate of other nations/people can be a source of innovation and developement. It does unite people in hate, they work together to destroy, but I just think how this can create political unity or progress in any way... I think it is a not very promising way, my personal belief it is that it bears rather the germ of destruction.
The creation of Israel gave the Islamic nations a cause and the oil embargo of the 1970s game them money and means. When they couldn't win using traditional warfare they opted for terrorism as their preferred method of fighting the forces of change and, in their minds, oppression.

I find it ironic how often Islam is mentioned as a catalyst for European reform, when the Islamic invasions of the 7th and 8th centuries (along with the Vikings) helped to perpetuate the feudal isolation and xenophobia of the early Middle Ages. What the Crusades actually did was whet the beak of curiosity in Europeans. It inspired them to find out more about the world outside, and what the benefits of such exploration would entail.


@North King: I already know the damage the Mongols did to parts of the middle east. I don't need a computer game forum to tell me that. I want to hear convincing arguments that the Mongol invasion were the most important reason for the later imbalance between Christendom and the Islamic World.

While by the 12th century, Islam seemed to be losing much of its initial viability, I think that you may underestimate the Mongols' effect on Persia and Mesopotamia. That aside I agree with everything you've stated. An especially good point was on the Ottomans' success partly or largely having to do with the acquisition of occidental statecraft and other practices inherited from the Byzantines.

The notion of holy war in medieval Catholicism has been explained as a loan from Islam. Is there any particular reason to reject this?

Asides from Catholic saints justifying it in the 4th century, some 250 years prior to the birth of Muhamed? No, none at all.

The Arabs, what did they do in this time? To say a year 1450/1492 to 1700 and ongoing, what happened in the Arab world?

The areas that weren't bedouin were subjuagated by the Ottomans, who weren't exactly known for their scientific developments. Besides, the Arabs looked at them as foreign conquerers, so they didn't even adopt the more tolerant Ottoman Islam. To the contrary, radical Islam developed at this time among the bedouins. Eventually these people took over most of the Arab peninsula. That's where Saudi Arabia comes from.

Elsewhere the Arab world was conquered by the French and British which split it up into inane factions each filled with combating ethnic groups (i.e. Iraq). The Western powers didn't allow for these provinces to unite in a new Arab super state, so rather they just became unstable quarreling little independent states. And this allowed radical Islam to spread rapidly as a sort of pan-Arab religion.

Then the Jews came and things got ten times worse.

The end.

As for why the Islamic world stopped advancing. There are a number of reasons. The Mongols. They destroyed so many books in Bagdad that a river of ink flowed for days. Philosophical. They decided that what they didn't know already, god didn't intend for them now. The reasons BirdJaguar stated.. etc. etc.

The areas that weren't bedouin were subjuagated by the Ottomans, who weren't exactly known for their scientific developments. Besides, the Arabs looked at them as foreign conquerers, so they didn't even adopt the more tolerant Ottoman Islam. To the contrary, radical Islam developed at this time among the bedouins. Eventually these people took over most of the Arab peninsula. That's where Saudi Arabia comes from.

Elsewhere the Arab world was conquered by the French and British which split it up into inane factions each filled with combating ethnic groups (i.e. Iraq). The Western powers didn't allow for these provinces to unite in a new Arab super state, so rather they just became unstable quarreling little independent states. And this allowed radical Islam to spread rapidly as a sort of pan-Arab religion.

Then the Jews came and things got ten times worse.
The end.

there already was an arab super state called the ottoman empire, you know, the one that inflicted heavy casualties on the in ww1

I believe I disagree with you too much too continue further debate without elevating my blood pressure to an absurdly high level. So I discontinue while leaving a few points:

Islam was not solely responsible for bringing the West out of stasis. But I think little else can explain the sudden cultural flowering after the Crusades.

The Mongols, while you believe did not have much of an impact... They did, simply put. They rampaged through Persia and Mesopotamia, sacked cities, killed millions, destroyed most importantly the enormus irrigation system in the area transforming it into a desert. They plunged a dagger into the heart of Islam. Before the Mongols came, Islam was culturally vibrant and strong, afterwards, like Russia, it turned inward and became xenophobic and hostile to outsiders. Interestingly enough, so did China, so Europe was the only place that had a chance at world domination that was free of the Mongol threat. That says something to me, but apparently not to you.

Also, Islam was ceratinly not behind in the 13th century, I would put the point where they fell dangerously behind at about the 17th century. Before then, in the 16th century they were equal, before that, equal or ahead.

But my points differ so much from yours I see no point in continuing.

india wasn't effected by the mongols ;)

and another thing why did the fertile crescent become so much less fertile over the years?

there already was an arab super state called the ottoman empire, you know, the one that inflicted heavy casualties on the in ww1

That was not Arab, but Turkish.

india wasn't effected by the mongols

and another thing why did the fertile crescent become so much less fertile over the years?

No, India was not, however, India was affected by numerous other barbarian invasions over its history. People seem to underestimate the damage barbarians can do in terms of xenophobia and destruction.

The Fertile Cresent's irrigation system was utterly destroyed by the Mongols and thus it became a desert... Unless you listen to some who seem to think the Mongols did relatively nothing. :rolleyes:

turkish, arab, they probably weren't taking there chances, and couldn't they re-irrigate it?

turkish, arab, they probably weren't taking there chances, and couldn't they re-irrigate it?

There's a big difference between Turkish and Arab there, considering that the Arabs revolted from the Ottomans for precisely that reason.

And another thing regarding Christians borrowing the idea of holy war from the Muslims. A Jihad (of the sword) and a Crusade are fundementally different in that untill the Christian crusades a Jihad had the goal of spreading the Islamic state, whereas a Crusade had the goal of spreading the Christian religion.

Hi aaminion00, thanks for the really interesting and informative postings.

I still wonder: Where there not other centers of knowledge besides Baghdad? How far did the Mongols conquer this area? Did they reach the mediterranean?

they expanded to middle turkey

Hi aaminion00, thanks for the really interesting and informative postings.

I still wonder: Where there not other centers of knowledge besides Baghdad? How far did the Mongols conquer this area? Did they reach the mediterranean?

Thank you. I'm not sure because honestly I don't know that much about the details of the Mongol invasion of Dar Al Islam. All I know is that the Mamelukes under Beybers defeated them in Syria. I also know they defeated the Seljuk turks, but don't know what happened to them with the Byzantines. In Europe they practically went to the cold war Iron Curtain before turning back.

no they got to romania, although that is about the iron curtain