The Arabs as a branch of Western civilization

magritte

Warlord
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
203
I was visiting Spain recently and while wandering about the Alhambra, it struck me how Roman Moorish Spain was...the tile mosaics, the arches and domes, the public bathhouses, the houses with the interior courtyards, etc. Religion aside, I think a Roman would have been much more at home in Granada than a contemporary Castillian city like Segovia. And even from a religious standpoint, Islam has far more in common with Christianity than with any Eastern religion.

Of course, given the heavy Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean from Alexander through to the Byzantine Empire, it's not surprising that the Arab culture was strongly influenced by Greece and Rome. In contrast, it had little contact with China and I think most of the cultural similarities between India and the Middle East derive from Islamic influence in India rather than the other way around. I think Arab culture should probably be viewed as a branch of Western Civilization rather than an Eastern Civilization.
 
There is no doubt that arab culture is closer to Western culture than to chinese or even indian culture, but it's different enough to constitute a separate civilization.

There are many cvilizations in the world, not just "Western" and "Eastern".
 
Arab civilization was definitely an entity unto itself, however, it had heavy influences from both Indian and Western culture. As you say, there were many Roman influences, mostly because they conquered so much territory in the old Byzantine Empire and loved what they saw, and immediately assimilated the culture of it. Then they also gained cultural and scientific ideas from India, which heavily influenced them as well. They combined all this with a distinctly Arab perspective, and forged a very unusual culture.
 
The process of dividing a world into East and West is always a dicey one.
As for the Arabs, they affected the European culture in much more serious and abundant way then were themselves influenced by it. In fact, it were Arabs who delivered translations of Aristotle and a few other Classic thinkers to the European philosophy, thus ending the reign of Plato in theology and setting up new approach to the question of religion and reason - one of the pillars of medieval theology. Hence, the Renaissance was largely an offshoot of such heavy Arabian influence on the "western" culture. Also, lets not forget that things like numerals(borrowed from India), libraries,universities,paper( from China), astronomy, math, optics, chemistry, medicine, metal works(Toledo steel anyone?), citruses and even music(string instruments) were Arabian gifts to the Europe.
I've never been in Italy or Spain but to my knowledge certain mosques and palaces in Spain resemble heavily Renaissance architecture( due to obvious borrowings I suspect) and Gothic motifs are rooted in Arab culture.
Interestingly enough, it is hard to find "Western" influence in the "East", it's rather the other way around, except maybe Mahayana Buddhism and smoking of Opium.Well, I've probably digressed a bit.
 
I wouldnt say that arab civiliation has much to do with the western world. Fundamental philosphical ideas are opossed to the western ones and it is much more heavily influenced by persian culture. You cant take the case of Al-andalus and generalize it to the rest of the muslim world since it was most of the time isolated of the rest of the muslim world.

In Spain there was a mix beetwen arab architecture and muslim architecture because there were christians living in muslim territories that were influenced by arab culture, they were called mozarabs. Many emigrated to christian territories when muslims became more intolerant and they had an imoportant cultural influence there. Preromanic buildings built in christian Spain since VIII to XI century are mozarabs, so you can see "visigothic" churches with muslim elements.Later along the reconquist and after it, muslim living in christian territories influenced architecture in the same way, this architectonic style is called mudejar. Surely some of the buildings referred by the open poster were mudejar.

OTOH late muslim art and architecture in Spain was influenced significantly by western world (but as Illdisposed said, in a lesser degree what the other way around) Take the Alhambra for instance. You can find there sculptures of animals in the Courtyard of the Lions. That is very rare in the iconoclast muslim world.
 
Well, certainly the moorish influence continued in Spain long afterward and I'll grant the visigothic arch was widely adopted by the moors. But my main point was that Moorish Spain retained a great deal of Greek and Roman elements, which are also generally viewed as the major sources of European civilization. And yes, the Arabs played a major role in exposing Europeans to Greek and Roman philosophy. And it's certainly not just in Spain that Roman elements were important in the Islamic world--look at the Blue Mosque.

It's sort of like Hindi and English--certainly, they're distinct languages but they're branches of the same language family. Persian culture is a major player as well, but Persia's not a totally foreign influence to the West, either. I guess you could see them as having a Roman father and a Persian mother, which would make them a half-sibling to European civilization.

The Court of Lions is a bit of an oddball, unique in Granada. Even the mudejar work in Sevilla and Toledo doesn't normally have figurative art. I'd be surprised if they were mozarab work, since they're stylistically quite Asiatic. It seems to me I've seen extensive figurative art from the Muslim states in northern India. The Byzantines went through a period where they were opposed to figurative religious imagery, as well.
 
Arab civilization is not western, the expansion of islam destroyed the unity of the mediterranean world, which wouldnt have happened if it were the same civilization.
 
If West means here the Judeo-Christian civilization of Europe that emerged during the Middle Ages from the collpase of the classic world, and built on strong influences from Greece and Rome, Judaism and Christianity, and the victorious germanic tribes, then I don't think so. I'd say it is more the other way around actually. The Islamic civilization is the descendant of the old civilization from the Middle East (from the melting pot of babylonian, assyrian, hebrew, phoenician and syrian elements, and also an influx from Persia, Egypt and Anatolia, as well as more foreign influences from the hellenistic culture). I don't think that culturally, the arabs seizing power, was such a major turning point, otherwise they wouldn't have swept and shaped the region so quickly: linguistically they merely replaced a semitic unified language by another one from the same family; Islam is also a branch of the Abrahamic religions, like Judaism and Christianity, and meant as a reform of those - the region already adhered to those religions, and I'm thinking that its spirituality was probably more related to what Islam came to be than the version practiced in the rural world of the High Middle Ages in Europe. Probably the early arab invaders were much less cosmopolitan and knew nothing of the mediterranean sea trade and communities, but then again, these latter guys became arab anyway...

Therefore, the western world, either directly from its Judeo-Christian character, or indirectly from Rome and Greece which also borrowed heavily from the East, can be seen as a distant branch of the civilization that evolved to Islam in its modern form.
 
It's worth pointing out that if Islam is related to Christianity, it is most closely related to Monophysitism, which was a generally Middle Eastern form of Christianity (and one which Greek and Latin speakers typically did not like). So from a religious point of view, Arabian culture is far more semitic than Mediterranean.
 
It's worth pointing out that if Islam is related to Christianity, it is most closely related to Monophysitism, which was a generally Middle Eastern form of Christianity (and one which Greek and Latin speakers typically did not like). So from a religious point of view, Arabian culture is far more semitic than Mediterranean.


I am not certain that culture can be determined from a 'religious point of view'. Religion is one of many facets that characterize culture (i.e. art, tradition, scholastics etc.). There are some cases where religion is an insignificant component to cultural identity and others where religion is the fundamental building block and still others where culture is entirely dependant (and restricted) to religious dogma, the latter being the structure of Arabian culture. In the absence of Islam Arabian culture is void of a unique identity. Islam is uniquely Arab, however that is the Arabian culture's only claim.
Of course there are other aspects that form Arabian culture, however these aspects are "borrowed" from other cultures. These "borrowed" aspects have been implemented in conformance to original Arabian culture while the other foreign aspects that did not comply where simply discarded and in time forgotten.
So when you speak of Arabian culture, you are essentially refering to a partial amalgamation of Persian, Berberian, Egyptian, Iberian, Byzantian, Anatolian, Indian, Transoxanian and to an extent European cultures.
 
If Greek culture is considered to be part of the "western civilization", than Arabs (or general Arabic culture) should be as well.

Arab civilization is not western, the expansion of islam destroyed the unity of the mediterranean world, which wouldnt have happened if it were the same civilization.

The Mediterranean was already disunited.
 
Interestingly enough, it is hard to find "Western" influence in the "East", it's rather the other way around, except maybe Mahayana Buddhism and smoking of Opium.Well, I've probably digressed a bit.

Greek culture, particularly art, got as far as Japan through its influence on Buddhism. The flow of influence through the ages has been largely determined by which side happened to be alpowerful at the time. Alexander's adventures pushed Greek culture vastly further than his armies ever reached. Islam revived Europe from it's long stagnation, and the West did the same for Japan at the end of the Edo era. You can hardly call it one-sided.
 
[Mott1] Certainly culture can't be determined solely from a religious point of view, but I didn't mean to suggest that it can - only that, if we look simply at Arabian religion, it's semitic rather than Greek. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Islam is uniquely Arab, given that there are an awful lot of non-Arabian Muslims in the world.

[Enkidu Warrior] What is the influence of Greek culture on Buddhism? I understand that the first Greek-speaker even to mention the Buddha was Clement of Alexandria.
 
[Mott1] Certainly culture can't be determined solely from a religious point of view, but I didn't mean to suggest that it can - only that, if we look simply at Arabian religion, it's semitic rather than Greek. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Islam is uniquely Arab, given that there are an awful lot of non-Arabian Muslims in the world.


Islam is an Arabian invention, it is uniquely Arab. Arab culture is entirely dependant on Islam, without Islam Arab culture loses its identity. Again, other foreign cultural aspects have been introduced to the original Arabian cultural singular, however these foreign aspects have been structured to confrom to the primary cultural identifier, Islam.
I understand that there are non-Arab Muslims, however in regions where Arabian culture predominates there you will find a dominant Muslim population. These non-Arabs abonadoned there own cultural identity (whether through submission or willingly) and adopted Arab culture as their own. Arabian culture as I stated is a partial amalgamation of numerous foriegn cultures structured around the primary Arab culture identifier, Islam.
 
In other words, you mean that Arabness (as it were) is uniquely Muslim, not that Islam is uniquely Arab. Non-Arabs certainly don't have to abandon their own cultural identity to become Muslim, only those elements of their culture that conflict with Islam.
 
In other words, you mean that Arabness (as it were) is uniquely Muslim, not that Islam is uniquely Arab.

Have I applied the word 'uniquely' in improper context?
Islam is uniquely Arab
Would that not be taken as "Islam is a distinct Arabian concept?"

I suppose I may be wrong.

Non-Arabs certainly don't have to abandon their own cultural identity to become Muslim, only those elements of their culture that conflict with Islam.

Well I was not implying that Muslims define Arabian culture. I meant that the collective cultural abandonment occured only in regions where Arabian culture predominated. I am sure there are Arabs and non-Arabs who indentify themselves as Muslims that do not conform to Arabian culture.
 
Who constitutes as an Arab? Many Lebanese don't consider themselves Arabs as do many Egyptians. Iranian Persians definitely consider themselves different from Arabs. I've never heard of a clear definition.
 
Who constitutes as an Arab? Many Lebanese don't consider themselves Arabs as do many Egyptians. Iranian Persians definitely consider themselves different from Arabs. I've never heard of a clear definition.

True, there is no conclusive meaning to the term Arab. Various groups of people are idntified as Arabs simply because they share the common Arabic language. According to history the Arab is the most recent of all semitic groups, so it is incorrect to assign many of the ancient semitic and hamitic groups with the term Arab as an ethnic identifier.
The prevailing belief is that the Arabs originated from the Kushite people in the Arabian peninsula, however much of the historic records of pre-Islamic Arab culture were destroyed during the Islamic period so there is no way to reach a definite conclusion.

Because the original pre-Islamic Arab identity was annihilated out of exsitance, the origin of Arabian culture can only be determind as Islam.
 
Back
Top Bottom