07-28-2003, 08:56 PM
"That Arabs hardly swept away the Persians. What they did was give them a new religion, what Persia gave them, and the Muslim world, was the societal framework that allowed Islam to grow and achieve empire. The Turks fell in on that, an already established Empire that was built along Persian organizational lines. The Persian social influence on the various Caliphates is well documented. You can win a war, but it is not uncommon that part of the conquered people rubs off on you. Tortillas, anyone? Sushi, anyone? Frankfurters, anyone?"
Obviously, we're dealing with a synthesis here. The Mongols attacked the Chinese, and became Chinese. But they were still Mongols as well. Who can say whose empire it is? The obvious answer is that it was the Mongolians'. But it all blurs too much to tell.
The Arabs, who are unquestionably the first people of Islam, went-a-conquerin'. They (not the Persians) brought forth the ideas of Monotheism, justice and order. They conquered and converted in a time honoured manner. When you assimilate a people as old and as proud as the Persians, you will obviously change, just as the Romans did when they took Greece. The Persian administration was assimilated. Persian poetry mixed with Islamic faith to produce one of the great poetic revolutions. All sorts of junk went on.
But the fact remains: Mohammed was an Arab, Islam was Arab first, and it was they who came out of the desert (as the Mongols came out of the steppes) to found a new empire. The ideas of justice and civilization, while refined by the Persian system, originated in the Sharia, for which only Arabs could seriously be given the credit, since they were the only ones around at its creation.
My point with the Arab/Turk vs. French/German comparison was this: They are historically related peoples. They follow the same religion. They occasionally get along. They speak similar languages. But mostly, they hate each others' guts. Domination of one by the other is always loathed, then reversed, then loathed on the other side. Only from the outside would this appear to be one system.
Jester
Obviously, we're dealing with a synthesis here. The Mongols attacked the Chinese, and became Chinese. But they were still Mongols as well. Who can say whose empire it is? The obvious answer is that it was the Mongolians'. But it all blurs too much to tell.
The Arabs, who are unquestionably the first people of Islam, went-a-conquerin'. They (not the Persians) brought forth the ideas of Monotheism, justice and order. They conquered and converted in a time honoured manner. When you assimilate a people as old and as proud as the Persians, you will obviously change, just as the Romans did when they took Greece. The Persian administration was assimilated. Persian poetry mixed with Islamic faith to produce one of the great poetic revolutions. All sorts of junk went on.
But the fact remains: Mohammed was an Arab, Islam was Arab first, and it was they who came out of the desert (as the Mongols came out of the steppes) to found a new empire. The ideas of justice and civilization, while refined by the Persian system, originated in the Sharia, for which only Arabs could seriously be given the credit, since they were the only ones around at its creation.
My point with the Arab/Turk vs. French/German comparison was this: They are historically related peoples. They follow the same religion. They occasionally get along. They speak similar languages. But mostly, they hate each others' guts. Domination of one by the other is always loathed, then reversed, then loathed on the other side. Only from the outside would this appear to be one system.
Jester