07-28-2003, 09:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-28-2003, 09:31 PM by Occhidiangela.)
Check your history on this score:
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.
Try around the time of the Crusades, 1200 ish, Ogadai shows up, son or nephew of Kublai Khan, and kicks ass in Damascus and Baghdad. :) It took the Fatamids in Cairo, Suliman the Great, some Mamaluks, not to mention political strife at home, to slow his arse down. He cut a wide swath from Samarkand to Damascus.
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.
Don't you mean "the Islamic ideas of justice and civilization?" The most relevant claim to empire, by the Arabs, is the spread of the Arabic language, which being the only authorized language of the Koran, became a standard. (See also Ancient Greek and Latin and Slavonic as 'official' Christian languages. Martin Luther did not show up until the 1400's.) Those ideas on "civilization" are a few millenia older than Islam. Credit to The Prophet for his synthesis, and for expanding on monotheism learned from the Hebrews, Christians, and a few others. :P He did not make it up. Credit also to him, and his followers, for some new slants on the social contract. *tips caps* I am all for public beheadings.
But when the Arabs and the Bedouins spread out, and as you note assimilated Perisia, a funny thing happened. Persia rubbed off. The era you referred to initially was a reference to the golden years of Islam, and the Persian influence had been imbedded for some time by then. Victory from within, but a victory on style. Shiite = Persian Islam. (Hmm, a bit simplistic there.)
Greece, Rome and Persia, even Egypt, were civilizations long before Mohamed ever went into that cave, and for that matter, Egypt was a civilization when he showed up with Islam.
Islam? Offered some new ideas on how to be a civilization. It worked for a while, and like most great ideas, changed over time.
Yes, Mohamed was an Arab, but the Arabs lost control of Islam to the Turks, after the Persians had already, from within, changed it, particularly as it related to Empire. The Turks lost out when Attaturk threw the Caliphate out as a premise for government. It took The West and WW I to give it back to the Arabs, and I'd suggest that the Ayatollah's contest the matter of who is in charge. You have heard of them, have you not? You know, those Persians? :)
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
Peoples related because they ran into each other and changed each other. And yes, for sure, the "hate each others guts" theme is consistent throughout history. Hurrah for mankind, consistent to the end!
Before I go, "The West" rediscovered a lot of Greek culture because it had been kept as reference material by the wise men of the Muslim world. Great librarians, those Arabs of the towns, and good for them. :) Who do I write to, these days, to thank them for Algebra?
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.
Try around the time of the Crusades, 1200 ish, Ogadai shows up, son or nephew of Kublai Khan, and kicks ass in Damascus and Baghdad. :) It took the Fatamids in Cairo, Suliman the Great, some Mamaluks, not to mention political strife at home, to slow his arse down. He cut a wide swath from Samarkand to Damascus.
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.
Don't you mean "the Islamic ideas of justice and civilization?" The most relevant claim to empire, by the Arabs, is the spread of the Arabic language, which being the only authorized language of the Koran, became a standard. (See also Ancient Greek and Latin and Slavonic as 'official' Christian languages. Martin Luther did not show up until the 1400's.) Those ideas on "civilization" are a few millenia older than Islam. Credit to The Prophet for his synthesis, and for expanding on monotheism learned from the Hebrews, Christians, and a few others. :P He did not make it up. Credit also to him, and his followers, for some new slants on the social contract. *tips caps* I am all for public beheadings.
But when the Arabs and the Bedouins spread out, and as you note assimilated Perisia, a funny thing happened. Persia rubbed off. The era you referred to initially was a reference to the golden years of Islam, and the Persian influence had been imbedded for some time by then. Victory from within, but a victory on style. Shiite = Persian Islam. (Hmm, a bit simplistic there.)
Greece, Rome and Persia, even Egypt, were civilizations long before Mohamed ever went into that cave, and for that matter, Egypt was a civilization when he showed up with Islam.
Islam? Offered some new ideas on how to be a civilization. It worked for a while, and like most great ideas, changed over time.
Yes, Mohamed was an Arab, but the Arabs lost control of Islam to the Turks, after the Persians had already, from within, changed it, particularly as it related to Empire. The Turks lost out when Attaturk threw the Caliphate out as a premise for government. It took The West and WW I to give it back to the Arabs, and I'd suggest that the Ayatollah's contest the matter of who is in charge. You have heard of them, have you not? You know, those Persians? :)
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
Peoples related because they ran into each other and changed each other. And yes, for sure, the "hate each others guts" theme is consistent throughout history. Hurrah for mankind, consistent to the end!
Before I go, "The West" rediscovered a lot of Greek culture because it had been kept as reference material by the wise men of the Muslim world. Great librarians, those Arabs of the towns, and good for them. :) Who do I write to, these days, to thank them for Algebra?
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete