Jump to content

Retreat of Islamic Empire and China


zen

Recommended Posts

Going back to the days of the crusades, both the Islamic Empire and China (especially under Kublai Khan) were torch bearers of science and progress. It is said that crusaders brought with them a lot of knowledge from the Middle East that helped to drive the Renaissance  

 

Ming China, falling back on Confucion writings, shut itself to anything foreign after Kublai Khan, the last Great Khan. And Islam, earlier a beacon of progress, became seemingly trapped by the limits of scriptures. The refusal to accept the idea of printed Koran meant that printing presses, a channel for spreading ideas during Renaissance leading to intellectual development, were opposed

 

A lost opportunity for both the Islamic Empire and China to shape the world as they were not able to balance new ideas with the old. Allowing Europe to dominate the world. 

 

What should countries / communities learn from such examples? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, zen said:

Going back to the days of the crusades, both the Islamic Empire and China (especially under Kublai Khan) were torch bearers of science and progress. It is said that crusaders brought with them a lot of knowledge from the Middle East that helped to drive the Renaissance  

 

Ming China, falling back on Confucion writings, shut itself to anything foreign after Kublai Khan, the last Great Khan. And Islam, earlier a beacon of progress, became seemingly trapped by the limits of scriptures. The refusal to accept the idea of printed Koran meant that printing presses, a channel for spreading ideas during Renaissance leading to intellectual development, were opposed

 

A lost opportunity for both the Islamic Empire and China to shape the world as they were not able to balance new ideas with the old. Allowing Europe to dominate the world. 

 

What should countries / communities learn from such examples? 

 

 

 

 

Islamic empire was devastated after the Mongols ran through them by destroying the House_of_Wisdom and there was no real islamic empire after that. There are some powerful empires such as Ottomans, Saffavids and the Mughals after that which are powerful until 1700s but stagnated or disintegrated later on. 

 

Islam was progressive in those years from 750 AD until 1258 AD but regressed due to so many factors, the most important being close-mindedness and political usage of religion. There are some excellent answers as to what to wrong with Islam in modern times here

 

China was not regressing after the Kublai Khans. It is more of stagnation and they were never really colonized by anyone until modern times. I would not think there are lessons to learn from Chinese demise at least until now. They were doing bad only in the mid-20th century and recovered spectacularly well after that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sarcastic said:

Islamic empire was devastated after the Mongols ran through them by destroying the House_of_Wisdom and there was no real islamic empire after that. There are some powerful empires such as Ottomans, Saffavids and the Mughals after that which are powerful until 1700s but stagnated or disintegrated later on. 

 

Islam was progressive in those years from 750 AD until 1258 AD but regressed due to so many factors, the most important being close-mindedness and political usage of religion. There are some excellent answers as to what to wrong with Islam in modern times here

 

China was not regressing after the Kublai Khans. It is more of stagnation and they were never really colonized by anyone until modern times. I would not think there are lessons to learn from Chinese demise at least until now. They were doing bad only in the mid-20th century and recovered spectacularly well after that. 

Good points

 

For clarification, I am using the term Islamic Empire broadly to cover various dynasties. China could have achieved a lot more. Which is why I have used the term retreat 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every civilization has its lows and highs. They simply cannot sustain the progress made in the various fields for continuity. History is filled with numerous examples which prove that nothing is permanent and constant.

The Levant region which seems to be in the news for past few years , mostly for the wrong reasons , was once the most prosperous area on this planet with various advanced civilizations emerging and flourishing and thus earning the epithet "Cradle of civilization" . Similarly 

Islamic civilization saw its peak for around 500 years until the fall of Baghdad when it was ravaged by the invading hordes of Mongols who single handedly extinguished the all progress made in the preceding centuries , a setback from which Muslims could never recover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another factor that contributed to the decline in economic activity in Middle East was the discovery of the sea route to India 

 

The Middle East used to make tons of money including through taxes from the trade b/w the East and the West 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sarcastic said:

Islamic empire was devastated after the Mongols ran through them by destroying the House_of_Wisdom and there was no real islamic empire after that. There are some powerful empires such as Ottomans, Saffavids and the Mughals after that which are powerful until 1700s but stagnated or disintegrated later on. 

 

Islam was progressive in those years from 750 AD until 1258 AD but regressed due to so many factors, the most important being close-mindedness and political usage of religion. There are some excellent answers as to what to wrong with Islam in modern times here

 

China was not regressing after the Kublai Khans. It is more of stagnation and they were never really colonized by anyone until modern times. I would not think there are lessons to learn from Chinese demise at least until now. They were doing bad only in the mid-20th century and recovered spectacularly well after that. 

Err Mongols caused intellectual loss to the Islamic civilization. Not political. Politically, Islam started to fragment after Harun Al Rashid's reign around 820s AD. That is when the abbasid caliphate fractured. This is how you got the safarrids, samanids, buries, ghaznavids etc. They kept the caliph around as titular leader. This is why Mahmoud of Ghazni or Mohammed of Ghor carried titles of Amir and not Sultan, because Sultan is a sovereign term, while Amir is appointed.. by the caliphs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Err Mongols caused intellectual loss to the Islamic civilization. Not political. Politically, Islam started to fragment after Harun Al Rashid's reign around 820s AD. That is when the abbasid caliphate fractured. This is how you got the safarrids, samanids, buries, ghaznavids etc. They kept the caliph around as titular leader. This is why Mahmoud of Ghazni or Mohammed of Ghor carried titles of Amir and not Sultan, because Sultan is a sovereign term, while Amir is appointed.. by the caliphs.

You are right, the real political islamic caliphate ended with the demise of Rashiduddhin Caliphate in 750 AD. But the Abbasid Caliphate ( although only titular ) still held most of the Islamic world together. It is the demise of this caliphate that led to the final extinction of an Islamic Caliph ( something similar to that of a pope ). The Muhammad of Ghazini as you say used to pay his lip service to Caliph although strong himself. 

 

Irrespective of political aspects, Islam was a good thing to come to this world for those few centuries when the knowledge from ancient Greece to medieval India/China is all consolidated in one place from which the Renaissance did take the spark from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stradlater said:

Every civilization has its lows and highs. They simply cannot sustain the progress made in the various fields for continuity. History is filled with numerous examples which prove that nothing is permanent and constant.

The Levant region which seems to be in the news for past few years , mostly for the wrong reasons , was once the most prosperous area on this planet with various advanced civilizations emerging and flourishing and thus earning the epithet "Cradle of civilization" . Similarly 

Islamic civilization saw its peak for around 500 years until the fall of Baghdad when it was ravaged by the invading hordes of Mongols who single handedly extinguished the all progress made in the preceding centuries , a setback from which Muslims could never recover.

That is a myth actually. The levant, meaning what's today's Israel, Palestine and Jordan, have always been the backwater of the world. The civilizations that were advanced were in Iraq, Iran (khuzestan region), Lebanon and Syria coast. Along with Egypt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sarcastic said:

You are right, the real political islamic caliphate ended with the demise of Rashiduddhin Caliphate in 750 AD. But the Abbasid Caliphate ( although only titular ) still held most of the Islamic world together. It is the demise of this caliphate that led to the final extinction of an Islamic Caliph ( something similar to that of a pope ). The Muhammad of Ghazini as you say used to pay his lip service to Caliph although strong himself. 

 

Irrespective of political aspects, Islam was a good thing to come to this world for those few centuries when the knowledge from ancient Greece to medieval India/China is all consolidated in one place from which the Renaissance did take the spark from. 

They didn't hold the Islamic world together, since these Amirs started exercising way more control than the Caliph by 850s Ad. The Muslims waged a lot of war and genocide on each other, for eg the Saffarid-Samanid struggles, the Ghaznavid-Seljuk wars etc. The caliph became more and more like a powerless pope, forced to accept various Amirs and denounce others on the whims of the more powerful Emirs.

 

Also Islamic reneisssnce had very little originality... their seeming golden age is from exposure to Indian and Chinese knowledge base. We have, for eg evidence that Bhaskara taught the Arabs the Indian numeral system himself. Ibn Sina didn't write anything not known by Sushruta and Charaka themselves.

The Islamic system is simply not geared towards innovation. This is why Islamic intellectualism started to fade long before the mongols. True, the mongols sent them to the Stone Age. But pre-mongols, Europe had already started to leave Middle East behind in metallurgy and construction. 

Its telling that the only castles in Middle East that are still standing are either Roman and Sassanid era constructions like Dura-Europos or Derbent or they are crusader built castles like Kerak.

The only way they contributed to intellctualism is by not burning the old Greek and Roman books, which the silly Catholics burnt with great glee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

That is a myth actually. The levant, meaning what's today's Israel, Palestine and Jordan, have always been the backwater of the world. The civilizations that were advanced were in Iraq, Iran (khuzestan region), Lebanon and Syria coast. Along with Egypt.

In broader definition , the term Levant does include Syria and Iraq. That's what I meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stradlater said:

In broader definition , the term Levant does include Syria and Iraq. That's what I meant.

Err no, it's a common mistake by some, but it is most definitely not the broader term, for anything more the Jordan valley area. But anyways, it's beyond th 

e point. Either way, it's highly questionable that the levant or ME area is actually historically advanced till brief periods. I'VC is mostly significantly advanced by most archaeological benchmarks. We do know virtually nothing about who they actually were though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Err no, it's a common mistake by some, but it is most definitely not the broader term, for anything more the Jordan valley area. But anyways, it's beyond th 

e point. Either way, it's highly questionable that the levant or ME area is actually historically advanced till brief periods. I'VC is mostly significantly advanced by most archaeological benchmarks. We do know virtually nothing about who they actually were though.

I'm afraid you are putting words in my mouth now.Did I question the accomplishments of the people of IVC or in any manner belittle them? 

Fine I won't use the term Levant since it upsets you so much. Let's  call them by their modern nation states name. Syria once was a highly advanced civilization with world's first pottery said to be created there.The practice of agriculture first began in these regions which later formed the part of Mesopotamian civilization.

Anyway My aim was to point out the impermant nature of civilizations. Another example could be found in North India where after the decline of IVC , the urban settlements didn't emerge for the next thousand years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

I'm afraid you are putting words in my mouth now.Did I question the accomplishments of the people of IVC or in any manner belittle them? 

Fine I won't use the term Levant since it upsets you so much. Let's  call them by their modern nation states name. Syria once was a highly advanced civilization with world's first pottery said to be created there.The practice of agriculture first began in these regions which later formed the part of Mesopotamian civilization.

Anyway My aim was to point out the impermant nature of civilizations. Another example could be found in North India where after the decline of IVC , the urban settlements didn't emerge for the next thousand years.

Lol no. Oldest pottery in the world is actually Jomon culture Japan, 15,000 years ago. 

They were advanced in the 2nd half of 1st millennia Bc and 1st half of 1st millennia AD. but hats about it really for most of its lusture. ME civilizations are the most known about but that's it really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion of Islam had NO role in the scientific progress that was made by the Muslims. 

Those were mostly only the individual works by the Muslim Scientists, and actually almost all the top Muslims scientists were labelled as "Kafirs" or "Zindiqs" (a term which is worse than Kafir and refers to a Muslim who corrupts the religion). 

 

The top most Muslim Scientists were al-Razi, Ibn Sina, Yaqoob al-Kandi, Ibn Rushd .... and all of them were got the fatwas from the Mullahs for being involved in anti-Islamic activities. 

 

On Government level, Abbasid Caliphs did a favour to the knowledge by translating the Greek and Roman Philosophers work into Arabic. But once again it had nothing to do with the Religion of Islam, but it was personal choice of the Abbasid Caliphs. Actually Mullahs at that time protested against it by telling the Caliph that such translation of foreign nations will cause for the corruption of religion of Islam. 

 

In simple words, Mullahs always opposed everything which was foreign to Islam. 

 

Medical Science got huge loss while Islam didn't allow the Autopsy of the dead person. There is whole Movie "the Physician" on this issue. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physician_(2013_film)

Must watch it as it is a very good movie about Ibn Sina and how Mullahs stopped him from operating human bodies for different diseases. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion of Islam had NO role in the scientific progress that was made by the Muslims. 
Those were mostly only the individual works by the Muslim Scientists, and actually almost all the top Muslims scientists were labelled as "Kafirs" or "Zindiqs" (a term which is worse than Kafir and refers to a Muslim who corrupts the religion). 
 
The top most Muslim Scientists were al-Razi, Ibn Sina, Yaqoob al-Kandi, Ibn Rushd .... and all of them were got the fatwas from the Mullahs for being involved in anti-Islamic activities. 
 
On Government level, Abbasid Caliphs did a favour to the knowledge by translating the Greek and Roman Philosophers work into Arabic. But once again it had nothing to do with the Religion of Islam, but it was personal choice of the Abbasid Caliphs. Actually Mullahs at that time protested against it by telling the Caliph that such translation of foreign nations will cause for the corruption of religion of Islam. 
 
In simple words, Mullahs always opposed everything which was foreign to Islam. 
 
Medical Science got huge loss while Islam didn't allow the Autopsy of the dead person. There is whole Movie "the Physician" on this issue. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physician_(2013_film)
Must watch it as it is a very good movie about Ibn Sina and how Mullahs stopped him from operating human bodies for different diseases. 
 
I thought you were a muslim.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:
8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I thought you were a muslim.

Yes, I was a Muslim. 

 

I was never a Jihadist, but even a moderate Muslim dreams about the spreading of Islam and dominating the world.

 

I dreamt it too. 

 

Then I went to the west. There I got introduction to the "Kafir Humanity". But still I stayed Muslim, who still thought that peak of humanity is the domination of world by Islam. 

 

Then I got the chance to study the other side of Islam ... that side which had never been told by the Muslim Mullahs and 99% Muslims have absolutely no Idea about it. 

 

I wish those 99% Muslims too get the chance to get introduction to that other side of the story, otherwise they will keep on dreaming about the domination of world by Islam. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I was a Muslim. 
 
I was never a Jihadist, but even a moderate Muslim dreams about the spreading of Islam and dominating the world.
 
I dreamt it too. 
 
Then I went to the west. There I got introduction to the "Kafir Humanity". But still I stayed Muslim, who still thought that peak of humanity is the domination of world by Islam. 
 
Then I got the chance to study the other side of Islam ... that side which had never been told by the Muslim Mullahs and 99% Muslims have absolutely no Idea about it. 
 
I wish those 99% Muslims too get the chance to get introduction to that other side of the story, otherwise they will keep on dreaming about the domination of world by Islam. 
 
 
Will you elaborate on the other side of Islam?

What was your familys reaction to all this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to do extensive search and research in order to get hands to that "other side" of Islam. 

After a lot of in depth study, I found out that Islam is contradicting (1) Humanity (2) Modern Science

 

For example, "today" Muslims only know that "slavery" existed in history. But unfortunately they don't know the "exact Islamic rulings" about slavery. If ONLY they come to know these "details", then surely humanity in them will turn them against their Religious brain washing. 

 

Let me put some of these details to show you how "ignorant" are the 99.99% Muslims about this other side of Islam:

 

(1) 99.99% Muslims didn't know that Muslims were allowed to rape the captured women.

It was only after ISIS drama (where ISIS raped Yazdi women after making them slaves) that people come to know little about it. But still 99% people don't know the exact reality. 

 

(2) After raping the slave woman, master was allowed to present her to one of his brother so that he could also rape her. And after all of the brothers raped her one by one, she could be sold in the market to another master who again rapes her, and then sells her to the 3rd master ... 

Today 99.99% Muslims don't know about it. 

 

(3) Slave women were not allowed to take "Hijab", as Hijab was an honour and only Free Muslim Women were allowed to take Hijab. 

If any slave woman took Hijab, then the officials used to beat her with sticks and took Hijab down. 

Today 99.99% Muslims don't know that it was a crime for the slave women to take Hijab.

 

(4) The breasts of the slave women were NAKED. 

The Awra (Islamic Term of dress code) for slave women was covering body part from naval till knees. 

Thousands of slave women moved in the Islamic Society with bare breasts. 

 

Today 99.99% Muslims have absolutely no idea about it and they could not even imagine it that this is the Real Face of Islamic Sharia. 

 

Today's Muslim take pride in the Islamic "Morality" that it gave honour and "Protection" to woman through Hijab and covering whole body through Burqa. If only they come to know how Islam treated the slave women, then they would never take pride in Islam. 

 

(5) Slave women were presented half naked in the BAZAARS of slavery for auction. 

Not only they were bare chested, but the buyers were also allowed to come forward and touch their thighs and other private parts before buying them (just like people do hand check of sheep before buying them in the markets of cattle). 

 

Following image is not a myth, but a reality of hundreds of years of Islamic slavery. But 99.99% Muslims today don't know it. 

 

th?id=OIP.i2Ifkr1WMXRvjdiG-L765wHaE3%26p

 

 

(6) When child got 2 teeth (approx. 6 month), then child (boy or girl) could be separated from Slave Mother and sold in the slave market. 

Is there any thing worse than separating a 6 month baby from his mother? This is the peak of cruelness and injustice. 

 

But 99.99% Muslims today don't know this ruling of Islamic Sharia which was practised for centuries throughout the Islamic history. 

 

 

(7) Today world only knows that "witness" of a woman is "half" in Islamic Sharia. 

But the world (including 99.99% Muslims) don't know that the witness of the slave men or women was not even half, but ZERO. 

The testimony of slaves was not accepted by the Islamic Courts. 

 

(8) If any free Muslims killed the slave of other Muslim, then there was no "Qasas" for that (i.e. the free Muslim man could not be killed for the crime of killing a slave). Only punishment was "Half Deet" (i.e. to pay HALF of the price of blood money). 

 

Doesn't it sound bad? 

But the worst part is this that if the MASTER killed his OWN slave, then neither there was Qasas, nor Deet for the master. 

Thus masters were allowed to beat their slaves and even to kill them and they got no punishment. There were only oral moral instructions to not to beat the slaves, but if practically any Master killed them, then there was no punishment for him. 

 

Today 99.99% Muslims don't know this. 

 

 

(9) Islam also stopped the way of running away for the slaves by using different tactics. 

Firstly, Master was totally allowed to kill the slave who ran away and thus companions of Prophet Muhammad killed their slaves for that. 

Secondly, Islamic Sharia declared if any slave runs away then he becomes KAFIR and his prayers will not be accepted by Allah till he returns to his master. Therefore if there was any slave who was a Muslim and believed in Allah, then he had to come back to his master in order to not to got to the hell after death. 

 

Today 99.99% Muslims don't know this Zulm of Islamic Sharia upon the Slaves. 

 

The 0.01% Muslims (mostly Mullahs) who know about these facts, they hide all this and never tell it to the masses. 

 

If "ONLY" this truth comes forward, then for sure humanity is present in many moderate Muslims today and the battle between "Humanity" and "Religion" will start in them (as it started in me when I came to know about this other side of Islam). 

Edited by Alam_dar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@alam_dar

The practices you describe were medieval and probably in vogue in most societies of that time. Islam may not be responsible for it.

Slavery was prevalent in pre islamic arabia as well and continued post islam as well.

What is more troubling is some people trying to follow medieval practices in todays world in the name of religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

@alam_dar

The practices you describe were medieval and probably in vogue in most societies of that time. Islam may not be responsible for it.

Slavery was prevalent in pre islamic arabia as well and continued post islam as well.

What is more troubling is some people trying to follow medieval practices in todays world in the name of religion.

Due to several reasons, the EXCUSE of slavery in that particular era is not going to provide any defence to Islam, while:

 

(1) The very BASIC claim of Islam is this that Prophet Muhammad came with Islamic System (Sharia) whose "aim" was to remove all the Evils from the society. 

The claim goes further that Islamic System (Sharia) is "the Ideal" and "the Best" system for humanity. That is why Sharia laws could not be changed till Judgement day. 

 

(2) It is very clear that Prophet Muhammad and Islamic system totally failed in case of Slavery. Actually they legalized the slavery and thus slavery increased hundreds of folds during Islamic Caliphate. 

 

(3) As compared to Prophet Muhammad, we have Buddha (Goutam Budh) who brought the real "Revolution" against the slavery even 1100 years before Muhammad. 

When Ashoka (follower of Buddha) became ruler, he abolished the Bazars of Slavery in whole Hindustan, and this thing happened for the first time in the History of Mankind. 

 

Thus, due to the Buddhist preachings, there was almost no slavery in Hindustan for 800 years, till Muslims conquered India and they once again established the Bazar of slavery in India. 

 

What Allah and Prophet Muhammad were not even able to do that which Buddha and Ashoka did for humanity 1000 years before Islam. 

 

(4) Actually, Islam was not able to give even that much relief to the slaves that Bible (Jews/Christians) gave to the slaves 2500 years before prophet Muhammad. 

 

According to Islam, master could have "Temporary Sexual Relations" with the slave girl (just like "Mutta" of Shia Muslims which also has temporary sexual relations with a woman). In Islam, Master could rape her and after fulfilling his sexual hunger, simply sell her to another master, or to gift her to one of his brother so that they could rape her. 

 

While Jews/Christians also allow sex with the captive women, but bible stipulated that master should first give whole 30 days to her to weap for her father/brothers/sons who had been killed in the war. After that master has to "MARRY" the slave girl. And after the marriage, slave girl will be no more a slave but she will be considered as a wife and master could not sell her further. 

 

You see, Allah and Prophet Muhammad were not even able to provide that level of morality which was showed by the Jews even 2500 years ago.

 

Remember, Jews were living along with Muslims in the same city of Madina. So Muslims could in no way make a lame excuse that Allah/Muhammad treated slave women as others treated at that time. No, Allah/Muhammad/Islamic system/Sharia treated slave women much worse than the people of that time. 

 

 

(5) Now simple questions for the Muslims:


* Did Allah/Muhammad feared that Sahaba (i.e. companions of Muhammad) would have revolted against them if Sharia had asked that slave girls could also wear Hijab? 

If Allah/Muhammad didn't fear any such revolt from Sahaba, why then Islamic Sharia didn't allowed the slave girls to take Hijab and save themselves from the evil eyes of the men? 

 

* Similarly, did Allah/Muhammad feared that Sahaba would have revolted if Islam had stipulated that slave girls got the right to cover their naked breasts, and they could not be sold in the slave markets naked like sheep and cattle?

 

* Similarly, did Allah/Muhammad feared that Sahaba would have revolted if Islam made the Blood of slave life equal to the Free Muslim's life? 

Did Allah/Muhammad feared that Sahaba would have revolted if masters would have forbidden for masters to KILL their slaves if they run away? 

Did Allah/Muhammad feared that Sahaba would have revolted if Islam had forbidden the separation of slave mother and her 6 months old child by selling the child in the market?

 

Where there is a will, there is a way. 

 

Allah/Muhammad got all the POWER to abolish the slavery, or at least give other equal rights to the slaves. But they failed miserably. Actually they made conditions even worse for the slaves as compared to the contemporary conditions which existed among the Jewish tribes of Madina and Arabs.  

 

So, what was then the purpose of bringing Islamic System/Sharia, when it could not have brought any relieve to the slaves, but made their life more miserable?

 

Muslims have absolutely no answer to this question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...