Without Islam, is technological development considerably hindered?

John7755 يوحنا

Zlorfik said:
Have you read a source on this cause/effect or did you divine it from other things?

I'm curious about it either way
Click to expand...


I did not gain my viewpoint from a single source but my view is primarirly from my knowledge of Islamic Fiqh (primarirly Hanbali and Hanafi), records and estimation of slavery, the religious experience of the Shurha and radical Shia sects who rebelled against the Khilafah and primary sources from the scholars, Khilafah, Shurha, Imams, Bishops, etc...

I just expanded upon it by adding these sources and knowledge together into a coherent argument.
 

Matteo

Barbarossa Rotbart said:
No, it is definitly not comparable. Rome was an urban culture, the Arabs were mostly nomads. Thus the Arab expansion is much more comparable with the Germanic migration, even if the Germanic tribe were no nomads but had a rural culture.
Click to expand...

The picture is a bit more complex. The arabs that were under Muhammad's authority and then his successors in the years 632-636 mostly were bedouins. But the population of the Byzantine empire in Syria and of the parthian empire in Mesopotamia largely were arabs too. There had been arab migrations for centuries. That's also one of the reasons why the arab-muslim conquerors were quite easily accepted.
 

riggerrob

The original question should have been about which Islamic caliphate stagnated at which point?
..... similar to the way the Roman Catholic Church stagnated in the time of Martin Luther ....
 

Barbarossa Rotbart

Much more earlier than the Roman-Catholic Church. I believe that the Caliphate stagnated around the time the Ottomans became muslim, because they rejuvinated Islam until they conquered Constantinople. At that moment even the Ottoman Empire went into decline.
 

Namayan

Matteo said:
The picture is a bit more complex. The arabs that were under Muhammad's authority and then his successors in the years 632-636 mostly were bedouins. But the population of the Byzantine empire in Syria and of the parthian empire in Mesopotamia largely were arabs too. There had been arab migrations for centuries. That's also one of the reasons why the arab-muslim conquerors were quite easily accepted.
Click to expand...

Where is your proof that Syrians in the 600-700 ad considered themselves Arabs? Did the Syrians come From Arabia? isn't the emperor of Rome at this time Syrian and that part of the world still Christian?

how can these people who were never conquered before the Arabian conquest become Arabian in the first place without the Arabs conquering them first?
 

John7755 يوحنا

Zlorfik said:
presumably he's using "arab" (very loosely) to mean "semitic"
Click to expand...



Which would be a false term. The migrant Arabs were the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids. The Semitic people in Parthia were Aramaens (Assyrian/Syriac) and same for Roman Syria and Palestine (which also had Jews). A better term for Semitic people in both empires would be Syriac.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top