Why were Muslims more secular than Christians during the Islamic Golden Age? What led Christians to lose touch with all of the writings of the ancients while Muslims were translating everything into Arabic?
>>380351
>Why were Muslims more secular than Christians during the Islamic Golden Age
Secular for the time period. By today's standards they were just as zealous as ever.
Which is the main point, Christianity managed to become secularized over the centuries while Islam either stagnated or got even more conservative.
>What led Christians to lose touch with all of the writings of the ancients while Muslims were translating everything into Arabic?
They didn't? Many of the writings we have on the ancients were written in Greek and originated from the ERE.
>>380351
>Muslims more secular than Christians
wut. Islam has no formal differentiation between religious authority and secular authority. At the very least, Europe always had that.
>What led Christians to lose touch with knowledge?
In the West, it was the decline of social institutions that led to a decline in certain kinds of professionals. Engineers, for example. Turns out you need to know about Roman infrastructure to maintain Roman infrastructure. The societal collapse also came with an exodus to the East, not unlike what we saw when the Byzantines started imploding and Greeks started showing up in Italy. Also the wars where Byzantium ravaged Italy didn't help.
The ERE maintained almost all of their knowledge the whole way through.
>>380351
Did the "Islamic Golden Age" even really happen? Or is it just Jihadist propaganda?
>>380378
Secularization is not a useful thing to talk about in the middle ages.
>>380430
Yes. There are examples of art, literature and science from that era that survive today. You also have to remember that Islam were the main beneficiaries of Roman knowledge gained (or stolen) from Byzantium. It would take a long time before even half of that learning made its way back to Western Europe and even then it was the Mohammedans who brought it to them.
>>380430
Uh, Persians, Berbers, Moors, and Indians were producing a shit ton of works in the fields various sciences, mathematics, medicine, architecture, and so on at the same time.
So no the "golden age" in the Islamic world was not made up.
>>380451
>main beneficiaries of Roman knowledge gained (or stolen)_ from Byzantium
Fuck off Romaboo, its not like all philosophical or scientific innovations made by Muslims were utterly based off previous works by Greeks or Romans. So claiming it was the "sole" reason for Islamic world's success is not true.
Persians in particular were doing shit on their own on top of recovering lost works. Hell we know the Sassanids had surgeons who were actually theorizing about blood vessels for example.
>>380467
I'm not saying they only used Greco-Roman knowledge to get ahead you Islamoboo. All I'm saying is they had a leg up because they got all that accumulated knowledge and they didn't just destroy it like many fundamentalist Christian sects did to the relics of antiquity in other formerly Roman held territories like Syria, Egypt and even Rome herself.
>>380473
>They had a leg up
Well they had the Persians you know. The Academy of Gondishapur and the Grand School are things the Islamic World could readily tap out for academics and scholars.
>>380430
The Islamic Golden Age was just a continuation of academic traditions in classical Greece, Mesopotamia/Persia, and India.
They weren't more secular, Islamic philosophy and worldview was for a time provided for a more sophisticated culture because much of the classical world was still undergoing cultural transition into civilization, was largely tribal and otherwise backward.
Islam helped structure a culture more conducive to development, produced unity, and in some cultures that wee assimilated even supported the interests of the marginalized including women and poor (where they once would have had no rights, at least in Islam they had some guaranteed rights, at least on-the-books), compared to what had existed before (not everywhere, but again in comparison to much of Eurasia and North Africa) which is partly why it was successful and spread so quickly.
>>380558
poster here
Europe at the time, especially the North, was still in the process of adopting urban civilization and in a formative stage with respect to figuring out how to structure a culture for civilization. Christendom was still in the process of acquiring its sea-legs.
In the 10th century Cordoba was the center of culture and learning, which attracted academics from all over the western world.
Averroës exercised much influence on both Jewish and Christian thinkers with his interpretations of Aristotle. While mostly faithful to Aristotle’s method, he found the Aristotelian "prime mover" in Allah, the universal First Cause. His writings brought him into political disfavor and he was banished until shortly before his death, while many of his works in logic and metaphysics had been consigned to the flames.
In the exact sciences the contribution of Al-Khwarzimi, mathematician and astronomer, was considerable. Like Euclid, he wrote mathematical books that collected and arranged the discoveries of earlier mathematicians. His "Book of Integration and Equation" is a compilation of rules for solving linear and quadratic equations, as well as problems of geometry and proportion. Its translation into Latin in the 12th century provided the link between the great Hindu mathematicians and European scholars. A corruption of the book’s title resulted in the word algebra
>>380351
What happened with Christianity was this. In the Roman empire most of learning was still done in Greek. Come the fall of the empire it became harder for people to learn Greek, which meant that even copying out Greek works was kind of pointless.
But it is a huge exaggeration to say that the Christian West lost all of the ancient works. All of Aristotle's logical works except the Posterior Analytics were translated into Latin and were never lost in the west. So the myth that all of the Aristotle the west got was from the Muslims is not true. We also had Plato's Timaeus.
The Muslims had the advantage that the Nestorian heretics got kicked out of the Byzantine Empre and went to Persia, and when the Muslims conquered Persia they decided that they wanted in on the learning they brought with them. This have the Muslims a link with the Greek language that Latins didn't have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism
They were literally lead by a religious leader
They only tolerated Christians cause of dat jizya
>>380655
90% of ancient writing was destroyed along with the roman empire
>>380655
>Most of the learning still done in Greek
Nope.
>>380351
>lose touch with all of the writings of the ancients
The only books other than the bible they could read were the classics that survived.
>>380351
Islam is a political system and a religion. Any Muslim dominated government has bo such thing as a secular anything
>>380351
>What led Christians to lose touch with all of the writings of the ancients while Muslims were translating everything into Arabic?
Basically, entropy.
The notion that books and writings will be faithfully preserved just does not appear until the printing press.
Velum was not cheap. Somebody is going to scrape it eventually.
That and most of Europe never HAD the writings of the Greeks and Romans.
>Islam
>secular
See, this is the thing people keep getting caught on when discussing Islamic religion and culture. There is no distinction between religious and legal institutions in Muslim society - it just doesn't exist. "Secular Islam" is a myth perpetrated by contemporary scholars who're limited by their ideas of culture and think societies throughout time and place can be categorized by modern western social ideals.
The Islamic caliphates were certainly more technologically advanced than their Christian counterparts during the early medieval period. They had access to Greek, Persian, Indian and Roman writings on philosophy, mathematics, infrastructure and medicine that the Western Europeans didn't have. The Arab scholars themselves used these as jumping points for their own advances.
This situation reversed over the course of successive centuries as the feudal, almost tribal European societies were molded by the Catholic power-base into major spheres of technological power, while the Islamic world stagnated due to a wide number if reasons including but not limited to a cultural shift to harsher laws, internal schism across the caliphs, and failure to maintain large scale imperial order across such massive swaths of empty desert land.
>>380387
This.
>>380351
>Why were Muslims more secular than Christians during the Islamic Golden Age?
They were ruled by a "Caliph," which is the Islamic equivalent of Pope/Emperor rolled into one guy.
>>380663
Which is more than can be said for christian toleration of muslims at the time.
>>381908
So basically the same as the Roman emperors after christianity became their state religion.
>>381830
> the Islamic world stagnated due to a wide number if reasons including but not limited to a cultural shift to harsher laws, internal schism across the caliphs, and failure to maintain large scale imperial order across such massive swaths of empty desert land.
Oh and baghdad, the most important city in the muslim world, being razed by mongols, along with 1/4 of the iranian population being killed.
>>380351
Because they were traders. They needed the business of Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, and Zoroastrians.
>>380351
Because you can't be too stringent when you conquer a bunch of foreigners
>>380387
>wut. Islam has no formal differentiation between religious authority and secular authority. At the very least, Europe always had that.
>>380351
Rather than secular, early Muslim society was more accurately cosmopolitan. Religion was a matter of public order, and disruption of order was considered irreligious. Faith was a private concern and had little to do with the faith of ones neighbors, countrymen, or even - or especially - political leadership. So long as authorities and courts existed to maintain the public peace, the faithful had little concern to spare for what local Christians or Jews were up to.
This attitude was probably a matter of course for a religious society whose theologians tended to be merchants and bureaucrats supported by their own enterprise or aristocratic largess.
The subject of Latin Christians and their relationship with the Classics is another subject entirely, but it's not unrelated I think to the different circumstances surrounding the Christianization of Northern Europe and its attitude towards paganism and sacred space.
>>383262
It's true though, there is no "Render unto Caesar..." in Islam. The perfect state of things in Islam is a theocracy.
/his/ doesn't know much about Islam, you're not going to have much luck asking about this stuff here. Mostly you're going to hear some /pol/-tier stuff, some guesswork, and a few tidbits of semi-accurate facts that don't give you a good idea of what's going on. I'm a Muslim convert who majored in Middle East studies and took enough history courses to teach you some of this, but every time I get into a discussion on 4chan about Islam it goes nasty places.
>>383262
It's an obtuse point, but he's not entirely wrong. The earliest communities that adhered to Islam had significant democratic principles that tied in with their religion. It is no coincidence that the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was also expected (in the loosest sense of the meaning) to be the holiest Muslim in all of Islamdom. This tradition comes from those early societies in the Arabian Peninsula and acted as a blueprint for the highest office in the Ottoman Empire.
On the other hand, to say that no differentiation exists between any religious and secular authority in the Islamic World today or at any other time is just silly. The Ulemma have historically struggled for power and influence with the secular leaders of state, even including the most extreme like Ibn Saud.
>>383394
Not who you're responding to, but the guy's totally wrong unless he's talking about Shia rather than Sunni. It's fucking pointless to say why because nobody ever listens.
>>383403
>the guy's totally wrong
He's wrong to say that Islamic rulership and secular rulership had no overlap? That's wrong on the face, just as it would be to say such a thing for medieval Europe.
Islam has deep roots as a force in society and politics where it is most prevelent and has prescriptions for governance. The writings of Sayyid Jamal ad-Din are a good illustration of how this mindset influenced and continues to influence the marriage of Islam and politics - a proto-Political Islam, if you will.
>>383375
>>383403
I don't see why there's any need to be too cynical anymore. Sure, things get annoying after a major terrorism incident, but on the whole I've found general historical Islam topics to be refreshing lately. There's a lot of good posts in this thread, and even the odd shitpost or bait is generally ignored for what it is.
>>383428
No, a Caliph does not have Mohammed's religious authority in Sunni Islam, though in Shia Islam he does. He doesn't have any special authority.
>>383434
I dunno man. People around here still think that the Caliph is basically the Muslim Pope, that people live under "Sharia Law" instead of Fiqh, and that Jihad is the same as a Crusade and don't want to hear any differently. They think they know and don't want to find out that they don't.
>>383480
>No, a Caliph does not have Mohammed's religious authority in Sunni Islam
That was not my claim. Sunni Islam still recognized the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire as a religious authority, however. You are correct that Shia recognizes the religious authority of Mohammad to its leadership, but I was not arguing that.
>>383499
Any senior man who has studied Islam deeply is a religious authority though, especially one with a great deal of education. What you are saying may, in a sort of literal sense, be technically correct but the implication presents a highly distorted picture of what's going in within an Islamic Caliphate. That is mostly what I object to.
>>383499
>Sunni Islam still recognized the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire as a religious authority, however
Not him, but this I have to doubt. The title of caliph was a formality by the time of the Ottoman conquest of Egypt, and it never turns up in any religious function until WWI. All Ottoman religious authority was invested in the office of the Sheikh al-Islam, and every proclamation of law by the Sultan was treated as secular and not religious mandate.
>>383519
>the implication presents a highly distorted picture of what's going in within an Islamic Caliphate
Only to those who misread me, like yourself.
>>383533
>The title of caliph was a formality by the time of the Ottoman conquest of Egypt
Which one?
>All Ottoman religious authority was invested in the office of the Sheikh al-Islam, and every proclamation of law by the Sultan was treated as secular and not religious mandate.
Completely false and paints with far too broad a brush. The Ottoman Caliph held religious authority in an ebb-and-flow fashion all the way up to the Tanzimat period, after which that influence declined.
>>383550
Then just say "a Caliph was respected enough to issue an opinion on religion like any other senior, educated Muslim man". You didn't say that. You claimed that he had authority of a religious nature within Islam as well as secular authority. That isn't the same thing at all. Only when you clarify it does your understanding of the distinction become clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT05P0sFyKA
What happened? Everyone is laughing at the thought of women being forced to wear the hijab, and this was 1958.
>>383550
>Which one?
The one where the Ottomans annex Egypt?
>Completely false and paints with far too broad a brush
If so, then when has an Ottoman Sultan exercised this religious authority, and when has it superseded the Ulema? By religious authority I don't mean divine mandate such as that enjoyed by a European King which the Sultan did have of course, but actual power to decide what is or is not religious law?
>>383574
>What happened?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS1vlTGHhco
>>383582
>2 hours
Yeah, no.
>>383588
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvyeWaVMDrI
>>380536
>just
In the sense that all civilization is "just" expanding on a previous civilization's work. There's no point in reinventing the wheel.
>>383595
Look, I'm not going to watch hours of documentaries. Give me a summary of what you want to say instead.
>>383613
It's one hour. That's like three animus..
>To fight the Cold War, the US strikes a deal with Saudi Arabia: oil and money in return for Saudi freedom in propaganda
>To counter Soviet, Arab Nationalist, and Iranian Shia interests, Saudi Arabia spreads Wahhabi Islam, creating a movement that feeds on the chaos of war
>>383588
>on a history board
>won't spend 2 hours watching a worthwhile documentary to inform himself
How can you learn anything if you're this ADHD? This thread will still be here in 2 hours, amigo. You're not going the understand the subject from a few lines of text.
>>383588
It's a great documentary, you're missing out.
>>380456
But that's not a "Golden Islamic Age". That's a golden age of Persians, Berbers, Moors, and Indians.
>>385542
and Europe's dark age wasn't uniform across the continent.
>>385542
It's an Islamicate Golden Age.
