Islamic Golden Age = Rubbish?

Go back to pol

>>284340

I know you are new here, but please at least make an effort.

>>284340

This is related to history

>>284317

To give an answer to OP: Islamic science and technology were certainly excellent during the so-called 'Golden Age' (all such periodizations are inaccurate), but some of the specific claims made for Islamic science by popular writers or Muslim apologists are exaggerated.

>>284369
/thread

>>284369
Not just that. Lot of science they took from China, and they saved lot of classical philosophy.

>>284317
Neither. Both are politically motivated attempts to exaggerate history for ideological reasons.

>>284582
>>284582
Using this logic the Renaissance never happened....

>>284317
This is a better video on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH595DMVs-E

The speaker does have his biases of course, being an atheist and speaking to other atheists, but he's well aware of the exaggerated bullshit from both sides and carves a more rational path through the muck.

>>284369

My general idea is that the Middle East was leading in science during the IGE because up to that point it was always on the lead. For millenniums it was the most developed and wealthiest part of the world.

The question is whether we should actually call it "Islamic golden age", since during that time the region actually lost the position it had since always. It seems almost that Islam run the place into the mud.

>>284369
Inversely, Islamic science and technology were certainly excellent during the so-called 'Golden Age' (all such periodizations are inaccurate), but some there are a group of politically motivated people who seek to deny that any achievements were made at all whatsoever often with claims that they did little more than copy.

File: b4aIs.jpg (63KB, 838x460px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 838x460px

>>284317
pic related sums up Islam.

>>284582
There's no point in reinventing the wheel. Every civilization is built on the accomplishments of predecessors, that's how history works.

>>284648
there are 2 hagia sophias?

>>284658
actually, yes.

The one on the right is the Blue Mosque, it's a turkish copy of the Hagia Sofia.

>>284658
Tasteless Turks built a copy next to it for some reason

File: 1434437986454.jpg (39KB, 500x497px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x497px

>>284369
>Muslim apologists
The fuck is with this "us versus them" mentality?

>>284693
Not him, but Islamist Muslim apologists exaggerating Islamic history is a thing as much as anti-Muslim bigotry that does the same in the opposite direction. The only Us and Them are those on either side of that dynamic - everyone else that just wants to talk history is stuck in the middle. And I say that as a Muslim.

It is rubbish, it was a "Persian Golden Age," and it had little to do with religion.

Calling it an "Islamic" golden age is revisionism by Muslims.

>>284723
>Calling it an "Islamic" golden age is revisionism by Muslims.
It;s a Term that dates to Victorian England m8.

You know what Muslims called the Period? "The Ummayad/Abbasid Caliphates."

Mindblowing, I know.

>>284317
>So which one is correct?
They're both idiotic.

The first video incorrectly and very stupidly attributes the the "light" of the dark ages to the Arabs, completely ignoring the fact that the European Dark Ages weren't at all dark and filled with European philosophers, scientists and inventions itself.


The second one is 40 minutes long and I turned it off at around the time he said the following:

>I'm not a historian but I am a scientist and I can analyse data
>The germans that invaded Rome were the same ones that founded Germany, do you think would Germans destroy civilization?

Which is a complete non sequiter, Germans doing something in one instance in time does not mean their ancestors would behave in a similar fashion. To assert that because your descendants behave in a certain way therefore you will also behave in a corresponding manner makes no sense at all. This is not a man who should be listened to as he lets his ideology trump his critical thinking, which is really bad for a scientist to do.

tl;dr both videos are bad I'd actually suggest watching crash course instead which is something I never thought I'd say but it seems to be the lesser of 3 evils here.

>>284761

You should probably watch the rest.

What accounts for Islamic conquest?

>>284723
Persian golden age is wrong.

there's no valid term, it was an empire with many different peoples and different faiths over a period of different dynasties.

>>284767
>What accounts for Islamic conquest?
Military preparedness and planning, what else?

>>284639
I've watched thirty minutes so far and it seems to be really good.

>>284774

Why conquer into Europe?

>>284780
Why not?

>>284767
>You should probably watch the rest.
I'd rather not. As I said, his inability to notice his own train of nonsense makes me weary of wasting any more time on him and so I won't.

>What accounts for Islamic conquest?
Proper preparation, motivation and supply in the face of opposition with inferior forms of the three, same things that fuel any conquest.

>>284782
>>284785

So Islam WAS a conquering force at its very core?

To what end? Establishing an Islamic empire? That's what a caliph is, after all.

And you should really watch the rest. What are you afraid of

File: Clipboard01.jpg (19KB, 636x356px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 636x356px

>>284639
FUCKING DROPPED

>>284805
No one's perfect of course.

>>284794
>So Islam WAS a conquering force at its very core?
Yes, they're all evil brown horrible muzzies and need to be killed, you should get on that ASAP, srsly, gtfo of the internet, get a gun, or knif, or pointy stick and go out there and kill mudslimes you god damn faggot

>What are you afraid of

That I'll want my 44 minutes and 50 seconds back, that's it. I already did you the courtesy of taking you seriously for one second. I shat on your obvious piece of pro-liberal, pro-diversity propaganda and because I wouldn't also suck the cock of your equall idiotic German worshipping opinionated moron you have a problem.

srsly, fuck off, I'm going to go read a book. This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

>>284823

>>>/b/

File: Clipboard01.jpg (18KB, 637x359px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 637x359px

>>284818
IT KEEPS HAPPENING

>>284317

The bowtie is always right.

>>284836
We already established she wasn't perfect, why would you assume she wouldn't keep fucking up?

>>284836
Hey, it's either that or Ben Kingsley cashing in a check, or some bowtie faggot making a mockery of a historian's discipline.

>>284850
>she

>>284857
>she
THAT'S A GUY?!?

>>284658
>>284669
>>284671
>>284648

Byzantine Culture highly influenced Ottoman Court, imitations were natural

Even today Turkish Classical music is literally just byzantine music with a different language.

Although a muslim, particularly persian, influence was also there

>>284863
>Although a muslim, particularly persian, influence was also there
Yes, those minarets really change the entire architecture

It's a straight fucking copy, a poor imitation done by a creatively bankrupt culture piggybacking off a more successful one for centuries, fuck off.

>>284794
>So Islam WAS a conquering force at its very core?

Yes. So was Rome. So was Greece. So was pre-Islamic Persia. So was Spain and Portugal and the Netherlands and Britain and France and... seriously man, have you ever opened a history book?

>>284951

Islam, historically, was mostly responsible for the Dark Ages in Europe

>>285086
What

>>284317
Im no muslim apologist by any means, but bill warner is clearly some tinfoil retard who can't be taken seriously as a historian

>>284317
I think everyone has to realize that there was an a lot of scientific achievement to come out of the middle east in the middle ages, but that it has about as much to do with Islam as Christianity has to do with the Scientific revolution

>>285093

He's a scientist.

But can any of what he says be discounted?

>>285136
Everything

>>285148

Examples?

Keep in mind he's basing this off of historical data, not religion.

>>285150
>basing this off of historical data
Which no one can actually see and review.

>>285166

Of course we can, the hadiths are an extension of the teachings of Muhammed since the birth of Islam. We can take this data and compare it to history.

There's little room for interpretation.

File: 1441227223560.jpg (254KB, 1064x714px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1064x714px

>>285086
>Islam, historically, was mostly responsible for the Dark Ages in Europe

Islam wouldn't exist until 200 years after Rome fell.

>>285184
Oh my God. I'm talking about the actual list of data he's presenting through maps. Hadith collections collected two centuries after events in question (and which have nothing to say about the Arab Conquests themselves) are not data.

>>285199

There was still a classical empire descended from the Roman empire.

>>285184
>There's little room for interpretation.
t. non-historian

>>285184
>We can take this data

That's not data

>>284317
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
Didn't we already have an entire thread on this guy last week that pointed out all the obvious problems with his theories and methodology?

File: 1416883969317.png (466KB, 766x694px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 766x694px

>HE'S WRONG
>anons ask why
>you're just incorrect because we say so

Fucking demonstrate why it is.

Holy fuck this board.

>>285086
Except because not a long time (not even a century) after Islam arrives into Europe, we have one of the most brilliant periods of medieval european history. The Carolingian Renaissance started before the century that saw the arrival of islam into Europe had ended.

Which doesn't mean that muslims had anything to do with it. On the contrary, it means that you can't say that they're responsible for any dark or light age at all.

>>285245

Not really, most of the criticisms directed at him basically attacked his background in math and implied that only historians can understand history.

His theory is simplistic, but his facts hold up.

>>285258
It's on Warner to prove himself correct, which he doesn't when he does not present the work of any historian to back up his specific claims, does not present any data for review, and rather than publish his work for peer review is just presenting to random people of no background in history.

>>285277
What facts?

>>285297

He's written books.

You're attacking integrity instead of directly dismantling the things he is saying.

>>284317
Can somebody say to me what the hell is Islamic Golden Age supposed to be ?

>>285307
>He's written books.
Not for peer review by other historians.

>You're attacking integrity instead of directly dismantling the things he is saying.
No, I have no doubt he probably believes what he's saying. I'm attacking his (lack of) methodology.

>>285321

>white European hillbillies met with the intelligent, wise brown people of Muhammed and global civilization grew out of that

>>285325

His methodology has to do with following Muhammed's family throughout history.

>>285307
>instead of directly dismantling the things he is saying

It's a 50+ minute video presentation. It's been dismantled before but, this being 4chan, was lost once the thread auto-saged and was bumped off.

>>285342

>It's been dismantled before
>HE'S NOT A HISTORIAN

>>285341
That's not a methodology.

>>285348
Correct, he's not, and so he makes mistakes or ignores completely things no serious historian would.

>>285365

Like?

>>285329
Well then that is a lot of bullshit. The only thing when we learned something from these fucks was during return of crusaders and how to make a coffee when they got rekt at Vienna.

>>285342
>>285369

Thankfully 2*3chan's /his/ lingers.

>The general thrust of the argument made is that Islam exploded out of Arabia on an endless Jihad against the world that it has continued into modern times. The points about the Crusades and the Pirenne Thesis are in fact side points to this main argument, though important for the overall presentation of sowing mistrust in the audience of academics who currently study the Crusades and Late Antiquity as being too politically correct.

>The main problem with that is conflating Crusade with Jihad, and vice versa. The outcome is that anything that is described as a Jihad is now on par with a Crusade, and that anything that isn't a Crusade is now not comparable to a Jihad. What that means is, in the hands of someone with a point to make, one is more broadly cast over historical conflicts while the other is now more limited. And we see this with the timeline maps he presents.

>Jihad was not the ideological equivalent of Crusade until the rise of the Seljuk Turkish successor states, but instead similar to already existing Just War principles defined by Latin and Greek Christian writers of the Early Middle Ages. Thus, what is missing from Warner's map of the Crusades are the many battles, raids, and conquests made by Latin and Byzantine forces before, during, and after the Crusades that, while not officially labeled great Crusades, were carried out with the same vague air of religious favor and righteousness as many of the battles labeled as Jihads.

>>285277
>His theory is simplistic, but his facts hold up.

They really don't.

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1ocyxr/review_why_we_are_afraid_a_1400_year_secret_by_dr/

>>285107
>but that it has about as much to do with Islam as Christianity has to do with the Scientific revolution

I see the Islamic golden age as Islamic in nature in the same way that the Nazis contrubuted greatly to rocketry, and he communist soviets to space technology but we don't call them 'Nazi science' and 'communist science'.

It's the backdrop amongst which these things happened and a very powerful one at that. Communism, Islam, X dynasty, it fed into and defined the age so much.

As a conquering force, as a political order, as a ruling body, Islam played a huge part in providing the things needed for these accomplishments to take place so I wouldn't dismiss the role Islam played and say that they were inevitable. If we look at the people involved as well why would we ignore a very fundamental aspect of their life (that they were muslims) and assume that they would have done the same anyway?

As for the actual achievements they are either greatly over exaggerated or greatly understated by people looking to push their own agenda but I must say that those who push the understatements are far more punitive and unfairly critical in their bias.

>>284647
from stuff I've read it wasn't Islam but the order stability and economic prosperity brought by the Abbasids and then allowing thinkers from many different backgrounds many of which who weren't Muslims to come to their courts creating an environment for science and innovation to flourish.

>>285389

>See, I'm the ultimate multiculturalist!
>FUCK THIS, I'M DONE.

>Reddit

It was a bunch of retards circle-jerking about STEM

>>285381

>The main problem with that is conflating Crusade with Jihad

He specifically stated that people like you DO conflate the two.

>were carried out with the same vague air of religious favor and righteousness as many of the battles labeled as Jihads.

That's not what the Crusades were about, though.

Contemporary teaching tells us that we wanted to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims. Half-true. The Byzantines begged Pope Urban for help. Those two were like the USSR and USA.

>>284761
Is it incorrect to say the dark age was in the western roman empire after it collapse and then ended with Charlemagne creating his empire setting up institutions which eventually lead into the middle ages

>>285421
>He specifically stated that people like you DO conflate the two.
So he's not a historian, he's a damn psychic. Okay.

>That's not what the Crusades were about, though.
Which is why he wasn't talking about the Crusades there, but every battle and raid by Latin and Byzantine arms that predate the First Crusade.

>>284712
Care to link to some of these exaggerations of islamic history?

>>285421
>It was a bunch of retards circle-jerking about STEM

And making points about how Warner's presentation doesn't hold up to scrutiny by anyone who studies history.

Which is why he doesn't publish for or do his preaching to any historian.

>>285463
The other OP video for one.

>>284648
dude four pillars lmao

>>284317
>So which one is correct?
Is it so hard to read a book by a historian?

>>285381
>conquests made by Latin and Byzantine forces before, during, and after the Crusades

He does neglect to mention military actions made by the ERM

>>285297

Dates and shit, his visual graphic of conflicts between Muslims and Christians is compelling.

>>285519

He's saying some historians got it wrong.

Given how politicized things are (and given how some politicians can distort history), I'd be wary too.

>>285529
He mentions little to no dates, and his visual graphic offers absolutely no context to who fought who, why, what the source is for the event, etc. His chart on the Crusades is also lacking in several battles and events from Spain to North Africa.

It's only compelling if you knew absolutely nothing about the subject.

>>285539
Right, 'don't listen to those people who spend their lives studying history because they may be biased despite their education and professional careers incorporating ways to sniff out and criticize biases of all kinds, listen to me because I'm totally not politicized.'

Neither.
Islamic Golden age came from a) The "persianisation" of Arab Culture which led to an interest into Astronomy which led to Astrology and Science. (note that Astrology is punishable by death in Islam)
b) The spread of the Arab world allowed them to gain text from Greek, Roman, Chinese and Persian cultures. Ultimately bringing ideas that weren't around together. (Most translators were Christians)
c)Paper becoming wildly available

>>284874
You'd have to actively ignore Neoclassicism and the classical base of European philosophy and knowledge in general to not think the same of European culture.

File: Copy the greeks.jpg (35KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x600px

>>284317

>>285579
Actually that's also false, there was as much contributers to scientific movemnt from Levant, Egypt, Iraq, Maghreb & Spain and The stans in central Asia more than that of "Persia". And many of the translations were done by Muslims. Also they had many inventions in many fields. Modern day surgery owes its tools to an non Persian Arab scientist

The reason of such scientific movement in that time was simple, peaceful vast area of the world united under one government, and a common language to ease the information movement which was arabic. Islam had a minor factor being that Quran encouraged science to prove that Allah exists. But as soon as science started proving the bullshit of Muhammad Ghazali and others appeared and started a movement against science

>>285463
>Islam was the first religion
>Alexander the Great was Muslim
>Mohammed had scientific foreknowledge of the atom, global warming, humans being made of water, the round shape of the Earth... even evolution apparently

>>285722
>Le reddit trollfaec meem

Fucking stop.

File: 1448043648310.jpg (352KB, 859x717px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 859x717px

>>285722
>thinking the Islamic Golden Age refers to Mohammed whatsoever

>>289676
Well these are kind of misrepresentations.

>Islam was the first religion
It's more like Monotheistic submission to one God was the first religion and that is also what Islam seeks to be.
>Alexander the Great was Muslim
Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an is thought to be Alexander the Great. It doesn't say he's a Muslim. "The Quranic story describes a man called Dhul-Qarnayn (meaning "the Two-Horned"), who was already familiar to the inhabitants of the region, to whom Allah gave great power, and who traveled to the rising place and setting place of the sun, where he found the sun setting in a murky (or boiling) sea. At this place, Dhul-Qarnayn builds a wall in order to enclose the nations of Gog and Magog. It is thought that Gog and Magog will breach Dhul-Qarnayn's wall before Yaum al-Qiyāmah (the Day of Judgement) and will wreak havoc in the world (Islamic Armageddon)"
>Mohammed had scientific foreknowledge of the atom, global warming, humans being made of water, the round shape of the Earth... even evolution apparently
Yeah it's very open to interpretation, Muhammad basically said a lot of shit which is kind of obvious if you think hard enough about it, he knew the earth was round, atomic theory is very old dating back to the Greeks and he was obviously a learned man, and the Qur'an goes on and on about life transforming.

>>289755
>atomic theory is very old dating back to the Greeks and he was obviously a learned man
Democritus was not held in very high regard at all, none of his works where preserved. He is only quoted in ancient texs when someone decides to poke fun at him.
Now do you really belive that this is something that random gnostics would walk around and teach to random goatfuckers?
Becasue if you do, I don't know what to say..

File: Ibn_Arabi_Books.png (2MB, 835x1024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 835x1024px

>>284317
Do to contemporary events, there's a large desire by many people to revise history to fit their ideological needs, and this means both denying that Muslims are capable of even thinking or that Muslims are the root cause of all scientific knowledge ever. In fact the Islamic Golden Age based in the Abbasid Caliphate is a thing that happened and its effects on global scientific, philosophical, economic, sociopolitical, etc. etc. thinking is huge. These advances are due to social policy that took advantage of its unique geographical location and territorial expanse and its diverse population, being a society that was fairly inclusive and meritocratic and encouraged the many ethnic groups (Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Indians, Arabs, Berbers, etc.) within its control to interact with each other professionally, politically, and socially. With these conditions enacted, Abbasid thinkers (including Muslims of whatever race) were able to explore both foreign and local ideas and expand on them immensely. This is the period in which Arabic literary culture fully blossoms from purely oral Bedouin tradition to a dynamic international written-and-oral tradition. Not only was Muslim participation of these advances universal and prominent but they also occurred under Islamic governance so there's literally no reason to not refer to an Islamic Golden Age outside of pure ideological asspain.

The other big reactionary myth about the Golden Age is that was the end of Islamic / Muslim advancement and this is of course rubbish as well. Ibn Khaldun and Rumi are both post-Abbasid figures as are countless more. They all, however, are products of this initial Golden Age, as is European advancement, and no one that reading "Avicenna", "Averroes", etc., denied this. Only /pol/io and their wet dreams of race wars, the kind of people that don't read medieval literature anyway.

>>291023
>due to

Damn it.

>>288279
>But as soon as science started proving the bullshit of Muhammad Ghazali and others appeared and started a movement against science
Didn't read the Incoherence.