The Rise of Islam

[useless]

sassanian empire = sassanid empire.

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

 

[Squonk]

Sorry, but I do not understand the question

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

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

 

[useless]

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

thanks mongoloid cow! i thought it was sass-a-nid or is that another way to say it?

 

[shahreevar]

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.

 

[MasrTheEgyptian]

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)

 

[MasrTheEgyptian]

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

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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

Welcome, 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.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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.

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[fing0lfin]

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.

 

[useless]

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

 

[fing0lfin]

And better mathematics

 

[useless]

And better mathematics

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

 

[classical_hero]

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.

 

[fing0lfin]

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.

 

[classical_hero]

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?

 

[Verbose]

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.)

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.

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[Plotinus]

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.