>>668663 Yeah but inb4 the contrarian reddit historians come here with... >"acshuaally Islamic golden age is a myth guise it was just a bunch of Muslims stealing ancient Babylonian and Roman stuff, because all scientific progress is made in a vacuum and its impossible to build on prior knowledge without stealing.." or >" the scholars were all Persian not Arabs so obviously they can't be Muslim...ignore the fact that they called themselves Muslims tho.."
>>668772 >Not really, it's just a meme created by anticlerical historians to denigrate Christianity. Anticlericanism was strongest at times when people openly loathed the muzzies.
Of course among some of our contemporaries, I wouldn't be surprised that man make some bizarre chain of assumptions like Medieval times=powerful Church=pure evil=contrary to good = islamic we wuz folden age and shit.
Using foreign lands and, if anything, foreign lands considered inferior has been a common trope to criticize the times in Europe. Montesquieu wasn't serious about Persia being great in writing the Persian letters. He just wanted to throw bants about France.
>>668663 What is impressive is subjective since some people are easier to impress than others.
I'll say that the islamic golden age was able to be impressive for a lot of people, as long as you understand what the islamic golden age is instead of memeing. For example, this picture >>668772 has an islamic building that wasn't built in the islamic golden age. And a christian building that wasn't build in the dark age, unless you use a definition that is no longer acceptable in the academia.
>>668798 It depends a lot of what you consider "doing much".
It is true that after the early expansion a lot of the islamic rulers were not arab (after around the 1000~, they were mostly altaic people). It is also true that a lot of the famous scholars were persians, greeks or andalusians.
>>668798 Turks did even less than Arabs though. They were a seemingly military only race that didn't care much about anything else for a long time. It also varies according to what you consider "Arab". As in actually Arab Bedouins as against, say, Syriac people.
Am I the only one that likes the dome of the rock more? This cathedral is too grey, at least it looks in this picture. I know it's a bait picture, but they could have selected a nicer church. Not to mention that the best about gothic churches is the inside (although muslims have a lot of nice interiors too).
He means Christians get triggered when they hear about how there actually was a time when "le evil shitskin mudslime" had the upper hand in the power dynamics between Islam and Christendom in terms of science, technology, wealth, and empire.
>>668894 For Europe they mean western christendom, the real ancestor of modern Europe. The orthodox world was a different civilization, an ever-forgotten third actor in the triumvirate of civilizations that ruled western eurasia during the middle ages (and the most advanced for a long time). Only a fistful of european nations can nowadays claim to be heirs of this third civilization and they're subject of contempt (Serbia, Greece) or even sometimes branded as non europeans (Russia) for no reason.
>>668663 Quite a lot. Just the fact they opened permanent commercial connections between all the ends of the known world, and cultivated a civilization based on private property and in the natural order, which in turn made it possible of diffusion knowledge and culture in scales never seen before; during centuries and between completely different peoples with no affinity, it is a milestone of human civilization.
>>668988 The psychological profile of /pol/ is the feeling of insecurity, which is attempted to be filled by associating themself with their race, "white". Naturally this means that the racial concepts we have now have been the same ones through-out all recorded history.
Any time a non-white race is successful it makes them feel insecure so they need to either deface or take credit for it. Any faults in the "white" race must be blamed by outside forces, usually the Jews but also removing themself from Christianity.
They really don't care if something is historically accurate all they need is their feeling justified and if someone does post historical data they can always call them a kike, a shill, a Muslim, or degenerate.
>>668726 ignore the pics, i've seen threads almost identical to this one every three days, i don't understand, are there people who are really surprised that something good came from islamic nations? how ignorant can people be ?
>>668663 I don't understand why it matters that the Muslims were more powerful than Christians once. It's like an age old inferiority complex reaching back into time to say >NO WE WAZ STRONK FOR ALWAYS
>>668663 Well yeah I mean are people really surprised that Islam had the advantage over Christianity at that point when Islam controled much richer lands than Christians at that time. But don't get me wrong it's not like the Islamic golden age was key changing time in my opinion only very events go on that list. >Farming >Metallurgy >Creation of states >Industrial Revolution
>>668663 Of course it was. It just wasn't that Islamic.
[The Islamic Golden Age] wasn’t that Islamic. While Harun al-Rashid and Ma’mun, the caliphates at the time, were strictly speaking “the rulers of the faithful” and their regime was theocratic, they came much closer to secularism than we ever did before or after. Ma’mun supported the Mu’tizili sect who believed in rationality and the scientific method, and tolerated religious dissidence and even non-believers. And also by all accounts these caliphs drank wine. So this era is not defined by the Muslim majority world following the tenets of Islam. Also, by ascribing these things to Islam, you are ignoring the presence of non-believers in that movement, such as the translator Ibn al-Muqaffa’, or Muhammad al Warraq (who may have believed in god but certainly not Islam), or Ibn al-Rawandi. But if you say this, you are replicating the authoritarian attitude of Islam even more fundamentally than ignoring non-Muslims. Islam, basically, is a hegemony that spreads by trying to define everything by itself. It has rules for everything, and it makes its presence known in everything. But more fundamentally, it claims everything as its own. Science in Muslim majority country is Islamic science, economy in Muslim majority country is Islamic economy, art in Muslim majority country is Islamic art. That is why even the title “The Islamic Golden Age” is a repressive misnomer, and a reinforcement of Islamic hegemony. It can be the Middle Eastern and North African Golden Age, but to call it Islamic it means those territories belong to Islam and they are a sub-category of Islam. That is why us ex-Muslims feel so much excluded, because every aspect of our culture is defined by Islam.
This whole binary "Islam" vs. "Christianity" way of looking at scientific advancement is ridiculous in the context of the early Middle Ages considering much of the Middle East wasn't even Muslim and certainly not homogenous at all in anyway. While the socioeconomic prosperity enjoyed by some polities fell under the umbrella of Islamic society, it's just so simplisitic to say that the prosperity and advancement of Baghdad at the time and the prosperity of Cordoba were simply because there were quite a few Muslims there. The only relevance Islam has to the golden ages of some of these regions centered around the Mediterranean is that it provided a groundwork for law and that during more tolerant times, Jews and Christians were also allowed to go about their business and often allowed to contribute to society, hence why the Jewish Golden Age fell under the same period in Spain.
>>670245 Your point? Arabs used indian numerals and standardized its use in the world. Persian scholars took Greek mathematical principles and built on it , creating Algebra- hence why it is an Arabic word.
>>670134 >That just means that modern Hanbali Islamic interpretation is dogshit. >implying the Hanbalis aren't the closest to actual islamic doctrine Just because they produce dogshit results doesn't mean their interpretation is wrong.
>>668754 >just like how the medieval Christians were advancing science
The Medieval Christians did jackshit until the translated Greek and Arabic material. There's a reason natural philosophy and mathematics take off a bit in the 13th century then die due to well-known events, then the meteoric rise of "modern" science from the 16th century on happens.
>>670946 Obviously but medieval Christians still didn't do much for a number of reasons. Even Byzantium which had better access to the material resorted to translating Arabic material towards the end of its existence.
>>668692 >Thinking that the Mongols ended the golden age of Islam >Implying that their Golden Age (as fantastic as it was) wasn't based directly on western discoveries. >Implying to know shit about shit
>>672628 A big chunk of the Balkan states lay in the heart of Byzantium, but it's a bit silly to call them successor states. Greece maybe, but even then. They have been engulfed either by slavic or western Christian influence, so it's a bit odd people try to think of them as byzantine (again, maybe greece). I think it may be because slavs are also orthodox, making the transition a bit less obvious than the Catholic and Muslim takeover of other East Roman states.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.