Why did Islamic civilization fall so far behind just about everyone else (save Africa)? They used to be pretty competitive
Even now they are so resistant to any sort of renaissance or change in behavior. It's stifling them, and for what purpose?
>>351488
>They used to be pretty competitive
No
>>351488
I hate to play fedora's advocate but may I hypothesize Islam itself?
Because of Yakub
Saudi oil and the 20th century continuation of the Great Game, fucked and continues to fuck so many decent countries over.
>they used to be competitive
>>351525
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
Islamic Golden Age
Prove me wrong.
>>351488
When Europeans started colonizing the Americas and getting all that Mexican gold, and the Ottomans started succumbing to increasingly incompetent leadership and religious conservatism.
Up until the age of discovery, muslims and asians were years ahead of christian kingdoms
>>351488
Mongols played a big role.
>>351601
That isn't true.
By the late middle-ages Christian realms definitely started to surpass Muslims.
>>351488
Ottoman decline followed by colonization of the Middle East, then subsequent carving up of the Middle East post WWI/II into new nations irrespective of tribal identities, then waves of brutally murderous reforms carried out by strongmen in the name of western secularization (in some cases succeeding, such as with Mustafa Kemal).
>Even now they are so resistant to any sort of renaissance or change in behavior.
Most of the Islamic conservatism stems from a backlash against the harsh reforms imposed by dictatorships promoting Western secular values. This would be stuff like having groups of thugs pulling your grandpa's beard and then kicking him while he's knocked down, and so forth.
As well, many secularist leaders actively suppressed Islamic political associations - sure, in the name of secularism, but also conveniently securing their own power base at the same time - ex. Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood.
>>351488
1) Mongols wrecked everything REALLY HARD
2) During the rebuilding phase this Ibn Taymiyyah became an influential theologian and Islamic scholar. He came up with the interpretations of the Qur'an and Sunnah that many modern terrorist organizations use to justify their actions.
>>351626
I thought Timur mattered more than the Mongols in fucking up the Islamic world, or do you include him in that (spurious claims aside).
>>351488
The mongols burned everything down, then religious conservatism stunting technological growth.
For the Ottomans especially, the Janissaries were extremely resistant to change and did everything in their power to keep the status quo, which is ironic. They stagnated and brought down a powerful empire with the intention of protecting it.
>>351575
>golden age
That only implies when they peaked. The Islamic golden age is a golden age in comparison to the rest of Islamic history. The (Western) European dark age is a dark age in comparison to the rest of European history.
>>351619
Not true, the Ottoman empire was still pretty advanced and got the Byzantines rekt, although they're mostly Turks, not Arabs. Europe was very lucky to settle the Americas before any other Old World region.
>>351654
What made the Islamic world become more conservative?
>>351680
China is the only nation that could have concievably done it, and they were too busy decomissioning all their ships due to emperor dumbfuck. None of the Islamic nations had any reason to explore the oceans: they were the damn trade route the Europeans were trying to get around.
>>351680
That's because the Ottoman Empire consisted mostly of Christian and former Christian territories.
The Islamic heartland of the Levant and North Africa was on terminal decline though.
The decline and eventual collapse of the Ottoman empire, which lead to a disunited Arab world
Can't speak for Iran
they were pretty ahead of europe during the golden age desu
to be fair they're pretty great even until late 17th century.
like all other non western civilisation, they're defeated and colonialised. I'd say they're asian-medieval european tier. definitely above africans.
the difference between muslims and asians is asians admit they're defeated and logically accept certain degree of westernisation. while muslims, because historical grudge (crusade) still dream of destroying westerners. hence the backwardness.
>>351525
/pol/ leave. You can have a negative opinion, but you can't blatantly misrepresent the history.
>>351488
>They used to be pretty competitive
ayy lmao?
They were only relevant with the decline of other civilizations around them fell and Baghdad became a center of knowledge because it was the wealthiest city on Earth and scholars flocked to it. Then the mongols sacked it and it was all over.
>>351645
I'd include Timur under the umbrella of "Mongols". I don't see how the statement is spurious though. He considered people not observing Islamic practices in their daily lives as "aggression against Muslims" and a reason to fight against them. Osama bin Laden was a fan of his teachings.
>"It is allowed to fight people for (not observing) unambiguous and generally recognized obligations and prohibitions, until they undertake to perform the explicitly prescribed prayers, to pay zakat, to fast during the month of Ramadan, to make the pilgrimage to Mecca and to avoid what is prohibited, such as marrying women in spite of legal impediments, eating impure things, acting unlawfully against the lives and properties of Muslims and the like. It is obligatory to take the initiative in fighting those people, as soon as the Prophet's summons with the reasons for which they are fought has reached them. But if they first attack the Muslims then fighting them is even more urgent, as we have mentioned when dealing with the fighting against rebellious and aggressive bandits."
>>351821
what is the point of this post? you can say that about literally any other "competitive" civilization in relation to its contemporaries
Combo of the aftermath of the Crusades/Mongols and the fact that the Ottomans really only had their martial power to stand on, rather than a culture of advancement and learning.
>>351743
This is pretty accurate. One example would be in British India, where Hindus went acquired western education and learned english, literature, modern science, etc. Muslims were stubbornly stuck in the days of the Mughal empire and insisted on learning Persian, Arabic, and religious law in madrassas
>>352031
The crusades hardly had any impact on Islamic sciences and development given that the holy land occupied was relatively an insignificant area compared to Baghdad, Cairo, and Isfahan.
>>352612
The effect of the Crusades were more far reaching than a short lived occupation of the Levant suggests. There was also the Reconquista, the conquests into North Africa, and the general domination of Mediterranean trade by Italian navies. This effectively cut off the Maghreb from Mesopotamia. At the same time the Crusades arrived in the exact moment when local Levantine Christian and Arab Muslim powers were overthrowing the Seljuks. This brought about a revival of a militant Sunni and Turkic power in Syria.
>>351488
They collapsed economically, and since the intellectual class that made up the bureaucrats and philosophers and doctors of the Middle East were usually also merchants, they were replaced by sedentary scholars who rarely traveled, made their living off populist moral outrage, and distanced themselves from political authority increasingly militarized and disdainful of the old high culture.
>>351488
That's what happens if you stop living like normal people and decide to kill everyone who doesn't believe in your religion.
There's much more than religion in life.
>>353133
The pertinent question is WHY they went that way
Why become more inward-looking and conservative and religious when the trend has been the opposite in the more developed parts of the world?
>>351488
The point is that there's no islamic civilisation. Muslims simply absorbed Persian culture.
Why did China? Why did India? Why did every single civilisation ever?
Because civilisations have a growth span of about 1200 years. After that they crystallise into a solid shape and no longer evolve internally.
>>351488
Syria wasn't so shitty before the civil war. Lebanon is well off. The Arabian Peninsula nations are very modern. The mentality and culture doesn't really matter when looking into a nation.
Genetics. There's a reason why nothing of worth has came from the mid east.
You can't focus on improving your civilization when you are always fighting and tearing each other apart every single day.
>>353178
Islam isn't a race. The Prophet would have killed an Arab who slandered Islam than a believing white or black:
All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action
In fact many of his enemies were pagan Arabs
>>353169
You cannot be serious. Mentality and culture are the single most important things.
A rich place can still be a shithole because of culture (Saudi Arabia for example) and a poor place can still be nice (Baltic states)
>>353185
No the whole area has bad genetics. It's simple natural selection. My point still stands, nothing of worth has ever cam from the mid east.
>>353211
Saudi Arabia is really irrelevant. I mean, they're just born sat on petroleum and they pay westerners architects to build their towers.
>>353215
>citation needed
Middle eastern power was based primarily on trade from asia going to europe and africa.
The europeans took over this trade and therefore their main source of income.
Of course there were other factors, but I think this is an important facet
>>353215
>nothing of worth has ever cam from the mid east.
>2015
>not being a persiaboo
>>353217
They're the single most influential muslim country in the world.
>>353215
What does this have to do with Islam? It's not race in any way shape or form. Did you know before Prophet Muhammad Arabia was very barbaric, uncivilised, and unsafe I live in?
>>353221
Islamic Golden Age was 90% Persians
>By any index, the Muslim world produces a disproportionately small amount of scientific output, and much of it relatively low in quality.1 In numerical terms, forty-one predominantly Muslim countries with about 20 percent of the world's total population generate less than 5 percent of its science. This, for example, is the proportion of citations of articles published in internationally circulating science journals.2 Other measures -- annual expenditures on research and development, numbers of research scientists and engineers -- confirm the disparity between populations and scientific research.
http://www.meforum.org/306/why-does-the-muslim-world-lag-in-science
Meanwhile little Israel with 8 million people is leaving them in the dust. I wonder why?
It's genetics.
>>351601
Not true. Byzantine Empire
>>353243
So correctly saying Islam isn't a race is denying evolution now? If anything it's the libtards who cry racism every time someone insults Islam
>>353178
Civilization came from the middle east
""""Islamic"""" civilization is a misnomer. Islamic conquests were only possible because they were incredibly lucky. Persians were at their lowest point and the locals despised the Byzantine Christians. From there, they took on the traits of the much superior civilizations and projected their cancerous mass throughout the world. It should be called Mawali civilization. The Arabs were (and still are) superstitious, ignorant and illiterate retards, and thanks to chance got to be something greater for a while. If you wish to see what the Arab would be today without such fortune you have nowhere else to look but Somalia, who emulate them in many ways
>>353259
Rather Iran.
>>351488
I think it has to do wtih the fact that the "reasonable" Muslims are the Turkish inheritors who are kept out of power by our supporting of Arabists and Wahabbists. We'll stop doing this once the oil runs out, and the Turks or Persians will come back into power.
>>353163
Sort of. Again, Magian civ was the only competitor in reality, and became stupider far past its "1200" years (BC to 1200 AD, let's say).
China would probably be more threatening if there were resources we needed there, and it doesn't hurt that they are far away. They can adopt capitalist/modern industrialist methods without becoming a military threat to us (yet).
When will the crusade meme will end? Compared to islamic offensives the crusades were a joke
>>353277
When ISIS kills all the liberals
>>351588
>Islamic Golden Age
>Implying it wasn't converted Persian and Hellenized people of the middle east doing all the work
>Implying it was actual arabs doing all those things
>Implying there could have been a golden age had they not conquered civilized lands previously occupied by Byzantines and Persians
Nig pls
>>353275
>and became stupider far past its "1200" years (BC to 1200 AD, let's say).
The only competitor to what, to the West you mean? Fall of Baghdad was in 1258. Though "becoming stupider" is not exactly a sign of internal growth.
>>351965
Spurious as in Timur claims to be a descendant of Khan but most likely is not.
>>353295
Sure, but at least China and India are raising their living standard without terrorism.
I think the stupidity among Muslims today is due to our backing the weaker ones so we can access the oil.
>>353293
Where did he imply that? That's why he said Islamic not Arab golden age.
>>353331
Chinese and Indian civilisation aren't advancing any more than Magian is, they're just much more receptive to Westernisation, while Magian is violently resisting it.
The West is the only living civilisation, joining it is the only way to progress.
>>353336
Oh, ok.
But really I see no problem. Besides, speaking of an "Islamic" civilization is kinda misleading. Even during the Islamic golden age there were several centers of "goldennes" (Persia, Spain, Bagdad pre-mongol), several brands of faith. Religions isn't usually THAT big of a deal when it comes to retarding knowledge and shit, except when it becomes to all-encompassing.
>>353348
Who cares. I've read Spengler too. OP is asking why Islam is worse.
Turks weren't really resisting Westernization. They were simply overthrown and Arab nations were put in its place. The Arabs too were Westernizing, but there was too much fuckery going on with the oil.
It basically started with te sack of baghdad by the mongols than the silk road got circumvented afterwards the ottoman empire started expiring and declining and now the most retarded brand of islam is being spread by the saudis with the help of oil money.
>>353242
It's culture not genetics
>>351605
>>353531
>>352031
>>351965
>>351654
>>351645
>CTRL+F Mongols = 8
>Mongols
Stop this fucking Meme, please
Look, by the 1000's-1200's. the Muslim World was a fucking mess. If the Abbasid Caliphate is any indication of Islam's "enlightenment" then it was well stopped before the Mongols ever rolled their ponies in front of Baghdad.
Yes, the Abbasids who ruled from Baghdad were great. Golden Age, the Academies of Baghdad, the great Bimaristan hospitals established all over. Persian Scholars. But that was during the 700's and early 800's
See the map? That's the Middle East during the 1200's. Technically all of Middle East from Persia to Egypt is Abbasid Caliphate. But look at their actual holdings: just Iraq? Why? Because during the latter half of the 800's and the 1200's the Abbasids fucking declined. It was too big, and eventually slip ups with administration and the full control of the armies showed until factions led by revolting generals, radical Imams, or the revolutionaries like the Fatimids and the Ayyubids. In fact the word Sultan (initially meaning "Governor of a Province") became equivalent to "Sovereign King" starting during these times.
Compounding this age of chaos was the conversion of the Turks. The Abbasids didn't rely on the fucking Army anymore and started buying whole Turkish tribes and converting them to protect the Abbasids. What did they get instead? Turkics overrunning the Middle East thanks to their cavalry superiority and creating little empires within it. The cream of the crop which nearly killed the abbasids earlier was the conversion of Toghril and the Seljuk Invasion, during the 900's AD in which the Turks drowned the region in warfare.
Lets not even add the Crusades on the Abbasids shitcake. When the Mongol showed up in Baghdad, it was to euthanize a long rotting empire. And the knowledge accumulated in Baghdad was already in Byzantium, Cairo, and all the way to Spain anyway.
>>351752
>implying everyone who disagrees with you is from /pol/
>>353604
>culture
Most of India won't shit in a toilet, yet their chief export is doctors. Also: space program.
>>351488
The Islamic empire was actually one of those flash in the pan empires like the Spanish empire was. They had a golden age, overextended, then collapsed back into petty tribalism and feuding.
The fact that Arab Muslims (as opposed to some more modern Muslims in some other areas) are still backwards is pretty predictable. They were always backwards except for a short span of success. Like much of the third world, they got yanked from medieval barbarism into the modern age by WWI. As a result, Arabic Muslims pretty much act like the medieval people they are.
>>351488
>Why did Islamic civilization fall so far behind just about everyone else (save Africa)? They used to be pretty competitive
A number of factors: One European learned how to bypass the silk road via sailing around the Cape of Good Hope. The reasons they did so that they were getting a very bad deal out of the old route and that Middle eastern rules had long used to their place on the route to bully their European trading partners. First the Portuguese, then the Dutch, English, Spanish and French all got on board with the idea of cutting the middle east out of international trade as much as possible.
Two the Ottoman-Hapsburg wars and the various wars the Ottomans had with the Spanish. On the latter the war of the holy league comes to mind as the most important. That war ended in 1573 and two years later saw the second bankruptcy of the Ottoman state in 15 years. Also the Ottoman fleet was left to rot in harbor because they felt they could no longer pay for a fleet of the needed size to be useful. So that means their financial service providers were hurting badly, their shipping was no longer protected, and the wealth of the region was already bleeding out.
> Even now they are so resistant to any sort of renaissance or change in behavior.
Believe it or not they have changed their behavioral norms more then Europe has. In the 1960s the wealthier parts of the middle east were every bit as mini skirt loving and sexually liberated as anywhere that one could point to in Europe or the U.S at the time. They changed so much in 50 years they whet from the Age of Aquarius to the 12th century.
>>353659
>Replying to a 10 hour old post
>>351488
You are looking at it from the wrong angle - the state's angle. It's not a religion that's holding them back, it's the incomplete form of capitalism imposed by the western centers that defines comparative advantages around the world
>>353659
>disagrees
>just says "no"
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
>>353712
>You are looking at it from the wrong angle
>Looks at it from a completely obtuse angle
>>351696
>too busy decomissioning all their ships due to emperor dumbfuck.
Lets just say that maritime trade caused a lot of problems for the Chinese during that era. This is a later case, but it has the same core issues to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiajing_wokou_raids#Shuangyu.2C_the_illegal_entr.C3.A9pot
If the sea ban had no use to it why did it get reinstated 2 times? Not to say that it was a great idea but they were trying to solve a issue that they did not know how to via other means.
>>353714
That's pretty much exactly what "no" means
>>353813
I was talking about "disagrees".
>>353712
>it's the incomplete form of capitalism imposed by the western centers
Mind explaining that idea?
Commercial ideas are not new to the middle east. Nor is modern financial ideas. Since the mid 19th century they being copying the best business practices of France, the UK, and Germany ( mostly France). They normally lag being the people they are copying by about 20 to 30 years sure, but that does not means that they can not get into capitalism. Unless you are talking about true free trade....
The issue there is that it when a few of them tried it caused capital to flow out then back in as foreign investment. The end result for those who tried it was not any useful economic development and losing ownership of a lot of real estate inside their counties. That is what normally happens to less developed counties that are next to more developed counties and then try free trade. Look at 1960s South America in places that opened up to U.S investment as better known example of the same thing.
I do agree that the issue is economic. However what I see as the exact problem that I see is that other then oil what does the middle east have to offer the international markets? Not much.
That leads to highly unequal economic relationships. This leads in turn to highly unequal political relationships. This in turn causes popular anger. Which leads to radicalization and finally a lot of violence.
>>351680
>Europe was very lucky to settle the Americas before any other Old World region.
Luck had nothing to do with it.
>>351743
>because historical grudge (crusade)
That grudge is not historical but very recent.
After the crusader states were defeated the Muslims kind of forgot the whole escapade in a matter of decades, including Saladin.
Then with the reformation and the enlightenment Westerners started to shit on the crusades and started glorifying Saladin.
This highly inaccurate interpretation was then exported to the Middle East. Since middle Easterners are generally incapable of blaming themselves for their problems, they welcomed this narrative. They even ignored the fact that Saladin was a Kurd.
And that is the history of the memory of the crusades.
>>353837
>a few of them tried it
>a few
>back in as foreign investment
keep that in mind
>That leads to highly unequal economic relationships. This leads in turn to highly unequal political relationships. This in turn causes popular anger. Which leads to radicalization and finally a lot of violence.
that's the point
>what other then oil what does the middle east have to offer the international markets? Not much.
same question can be asked about Iceland and Australia. And vice versa, how is it that countries with plenty resources are economically underdeveloped and dependent on the west?
Despite what is told in theory, capitalism doesn't favour competition: the last thing a capitalist owner needs and wants is a competitor to their product. The class aliances between the upper classes of the countries that are in the margin/periphery of the capitalist centres and the upper classes of the west are established to reproduce dependance. Class conflicts in those underdeveloped areas are a manifestation of the proletariat to get rid of their ultimate exploitation by the west. Enter the Indifada, the Arab Spring and panarabism and the subsequent western backed coups d' etat.
>>351488
>>351540
They refuse to let their religion "evolve"
They want to keep it straight like in the book.
It makes more sense than Christians who went from taking the book literally to calling stuff "a metaphore" each times science debunked some bullshit, but in return it forces them to leave in Middle Age
>>353293
>Implying it wasn't converted Persian and Hellenized people of the middle east doing all the work
It wasn't.
>it was actual arabs doing all those things
Said no one ever.
>there could have been a golden age had they not conquered civilized lands previously occupied by Byzantines and Persians
Said no one ever.
>>353688
Was the Monsoon Marketplace considered part of the Silk Road?
>>353163
>Charlemagne founded the Frankish Empire back in the 800s
>1200 years ago
Does that mean we are fucked
>>351743
>sweet fucking murals, marble
>underneath all their women are dressed up in black bathrobes
no fucking style.
>>354337
No, because America.
>>353688
>he wealthier parts of the middle east were every bit as mini skirt loving and sexually liberated as anywhere that one could point to in Europe or the U.S at the time
Places like Iran or Algeria were despotic regimes that enforced top down liberalization/westernization, but were unable to distribute equitably the economic gains from the nascent petroleum industry and the subsequent industrialization of the regime. The only place that didn't turn out so badly was Turkey until Erdogan came along. Everything else was either ruled by strongmen, religious fundamentalists or terrorists.
>>356108
>The only place that didn't turn out so badly was Turkey until Erdogan came along.
It is notable that Turkey did not really have oil, at lest when talking about post WW1. That may be the reason why things turned out better for them.
>>356108
>The only place that didn't turn out so badly was Turkey until Erdogan came alon
That's not true. In 1980 Turkey had a US backed coup, after that their politics changed a lot, with religion taking a much bigger part in it to combat communism.
The difference of Turkey is the fact Turks are very, very nationalistic (ironically this nationalism was completely artificial and a reaction to the nationalism of Balkan nations), so religion was never the main identity for them. So even after religion got kickstarted against communism (like it was in US as well, I am sure the politicians were actually well intended in this aim), it didn't completely swallow everything else.
Lately their politics got even more entangled in religion but a part of identity politics. The conservative right wing AKP, the religious front, the only change regarding religion they have done in 13 years is lifting the ban of headscarf in schools. The other is taking control of private religious schools (think of catholic schools) and making them completely state controlled, which actually helped against runaway religious ideologices like wahhabism.
It is a balance of power, between nationalism, secularism, religion, liberalism, capitalism on all fronts in Turkey and they are sitting it a very dangerous edge, getting more polarized by the day.
>>353628
>When the Mongol showed up in Baghdad, it was to euthanize a long rotting empire.
While I agree that Baghdad wasn't this glue holding together Muslim civilization, the Mongols and their effect on Islamic society is not to be underestimated. Yes, the Seljuks and other Turkish despots of the age were as unstable and violent as any flash pan military aristocracy, but they did not fundamentally change society as the Mongols and their successor states did. Perhaps the seeds were sown by the Turks in their consolidation and militarization of Sunnism, but it was the Mongols that sparked the fire that eventually consumed the old social order.
>>351821
Civilisations don't exist in a vacuum. Pretty much the defining feature of any civilization is that increasing trade makes it a hub for travellers and hence ideas.
Replace "Islamic Golden Age" to "Persian Golden Age"
Most of the advances in math, science, art, music, medicine, etc etc etc was made by Persians under muslim rule. No more Persians, no more Golden Age.
"The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour."
--Abbasid Caliph
>>351488
the Turks became awfully stagnant of pretty much all matters. They didn't even know whether call themselves Turks, Ottomans or Muslims.
>>353144
The tl:dr would still read "Cold War", and nothing more.
>>353628
>And the knowledge accumulated in Baghdad was already in Byzantium
Not after the Fourth Crusade it wasn't.
>>351965
Despite being a muslim (and turko-mongol) Timur killed more muslims than anyone else in history ever has.
>>353628
>Finland part of Sweden already in 1200 AD
>>357257
Persian is an ethnicity
Islam is a religion
You can be both Persian and Muslim at once, and all of them were.
>>351488
Because of the nature of Islam. Unlike say Christianity, Islam has a pretty complete legal system. This legal system was better than its competitors and allowed it to outcompete a great many states. However it was divinely dictated through the Quran, to Mohammed this is to Muslims the actual word of god. This makes Islamic law in a sense eternal and unable to be updated meaning Islam just fell further and further behind its competiors as they adapted their laws over time.
>Read the "The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East" by Timur Kuran to get the full explanation
>http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-long-divergence-how-islamic-law-held-back-the-middle-east-by-timur-kuran-2196199.html
>http://www.brismes.ac.uk/nmes/archives/698
>http://www.amazon.com/Long-Divergence-Islamic-Held-Middle/dp/0691147566/
>>351696
Or Islam if they kept Granada or used Morocco instead
>>359316
90% of Islamic law is not from the Quran.
Law in the Quran is quite limited and small.
>>359335
Sorry I tried to keep it simple and avoided going into mega amounts of detail and terminology. I should've mentioned the Hadiths.
>my points still stands
I hate Islam and think it promotes wanton violence but the biggest reason is the loss of huge agriculture and desertification
Didn't the centers of Islam (Egypt and Mesopotamia) dry up and the soil became salty. The economy then became dependent on trade but the centers of trade shifted to Europe/America
>>359420
Whoops forgot my pic
>>359420
You are confused. That's ancient Mesopotamia. The ME got ruined by Mongols.
>>351659
For a lack of better terminology:
A polished turd is still a turd
>>359430
Thanks for the info, but how come Egypt is an agricultural backwater nowadays? It was once the breadbasket of Rome and the most profitable province.
Has Mesopotamian agriculture ever recovered from that collapse?
>>359316
>>359377
The problem seems to be the other way around, that because the Islamic world fell behind economically it did not update its religious rulings on commerce. The argument that the law itself held the region back because it is unbending is contradicted by the very first link which states that tax laws did continue to innovate throughout the last few centuries.
>>359452
The nile didn't change because its floodland, it gets fertilised every flood season. I think they just lose the infrastructure.
>>359452
>The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East
Modern Egyptian politics really damaged the country's industry and finances. As for agriculture, it had declined compared to Ancient times, but during the early Arab Caliphates the region was still very productive. Turkic-Mongol invasions however along with Beduoin encroachment following the spread of the desert slowly crippled an already declining region.
>>359454
I think you draw that conclusion from the review, the book explains some of the ways.
>A shame I can't post a link to the book, so I can't really show it to you
>A more indepth review/discussion which includes quotes and references that explains better can be found by searching "long divergence lorenzo"
>I'd post the links and originally intended to use Lorenzo's 3 posts but the spam filter is fucking me
>The partnership termination rule, like the lack of entity shielding, thus discouraged the formation of large and long-lived partnerships. … In allowing polygyny, Islam compounded the incentives to keep partnerships atomistic and ephemeral. …
The stagnation in size and longevity of Middle Eastern partnerships had dynamic consequences. Exchange remained largely personal, removing the need for transformations essential to the modern economy (p.281).
>In sum, several self-enforcing elements of Islamic law—contracting provisions, inheritance system, marriage regulations—jointly contributed to the stagnation of the Middle East’s commercial infrastructure (p.281).
>>359574
I've read about half the book when it first came out, I suppose I should finish it now that I have the time. I understand Kuran's basic argument, but I'd say it doesn't support its major point of causality. Maybe it's explained further into the book, but I don't recall any case study which shows any of these elements directly causing stagnation, or if it was actually in play among historical Muslim merchant entrepreneurs rather than just existing in Shari'ah theory.
In any case, Kuran never says it's inflexibility in Islam that's the issue, but that again contradicts any causality to begin with. It's a chicken and egg problem like he once said, but I wasn't convinced by his argument to double down on one or the other.
>>358653
Yeah but calling it the Islamic golden age projects onto all of the other Muslims who couldn't do anything more than kill people.
Without the influence it of Islam the Persians would have still been there to do everything while the reverse isn't true.
>>361546
The golden age represents more than just the most famous of philosophers, but also the courts of enlightened monarchs, the merchant classes and their immense capital, and all other intellectual and artistic efforts such as poetry, linguistics, and theology.
Besides, a good number of Persian scholars are called such for their birthplace, but very little is known about their ethnicity. Some even claimed to be half-Arab, or client to a tribe, or even a descendant of Muhammad. True or not, it ties into the overall point: the culture of the era was a cosmopolitan one in which the East Persians that are over represented in some fields of science considered themselves part of he same social order as those of Arab or Berber descent across the Mediterranean.
>Without the influence it of Islam the Persians would have still been there to do everything while the reverse isn't true.
This is alt-history however, and neither of which can be demonstrably true because neither occurred.
