"Islamic" Golden Age

[DiamondHearts]

I've been looking for a good source of the history of the Rashidun and the Abbasids, any suggestions?

There are several history books written about these dynasties. The IQRA store and Dar us Salam publications have several publications which you may find helpful. The wealth of knowledge in English unfortunately is severely limited, however there are plenty of books in Urdu which you can find next time you are in India which would serve to guide you in the pursuit of knowledge.

This a fairly good link which I happen to have in mm bookmarks. http://www.islamicity.com/education/ihame/default.asp?Destination=/education/ihame/1.asp

One book, whose writer I have met fairly recently: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1426200927/mmn-20/

I will try to give you some more information, but it will take some time.

Not so much the military aspects, but their social network and interactions with the local people in the places they went.

Al Biruni has several wonderful books relating to this. I will get back to you on this topic.

Also a history of the first Arabic schools opened outside Arabia.

There were several schools opened inside Iran in the cities of Isfahan, Tehran, and in other regions such as Bukhara, Lahore, etc.

Diamond, since you know more about this stuff, could you also comment on the following?

I'm not so sure I know more than you, but I will try to provide some answers.

The main views on the causes of decline comprise the following: political mismanagement after the early Caliphs (10th century onwards)

This view presupposed that dynasties are not as fit to govern the Islamic world than with the use of consensus. I disagree with this view. I believe the issue is both due to lack of the speed of militarization as the Europeans, during the 1500s onwards, and the lack of interest by the Muslim kings and detachment of some wazir and landlords with the plight of the people. Something we even see today in the Middle East. The increasing gap between the rich and the poor definitely contributed to the Muslim decline, and this was especially prominent in the Middle East. In regions such as South Asia, incursions by the British and Dutch control of the seas, along with European funding of internal rebellions of the Sikhs and Marathas contributued to destabilization.

, closure of the gates of ijtihad (12th century),

This topic is debatable. Ijtihad was never formally closed for the vast majority of Muslims. Indeed, within the four classical schools, there exists a wide range of topics for which ijtihad has been practiced resulting in various groups such as the scholars of Deoband as one example.

institutionalisation of taqlid rather than bid'ah (13th century),

I am familiar that this is a point of debate among the Salafis and traditional Muslims. The scholars of Ahlus sunnah waal jamaah have stated that it is not a sin to follow a scholar of religious knowledge in matters of which one may have limited knowledge. Every Muslim, to the best of his ability, should research the proofs and evidences given by different scholars, yet it is not an inherent sin to follow a religious scholar in matters which you have not educated yourself about. Knowledge is a duty one very Muslim, yet not everyone can know everything about all topics.

foreign involvement by invading forces and colonial powers (11th century Crusades, 13th century Mongol Empire, 15th century Reconquista, 19th century European colonial empires), and the disruption to the cycle of equity based on Ibn Khaldun's famous model of Asabiyyah (the rise and fall of civilizations) which points to the decline being mainly due to political and economic factors

I believe you are right, the decline is based on political, economic, military factors in conjunction with the lack of religious devotion of the Muslim masses. There is a hadith which states that the community will receive leaders equal o the community, thus corrupt and self-serving leaders are a reflection of our lack of our devotion to religion.

 

[S.A.M.]

. There is a hadith which states that the community will receive leaders equal o the community, thus corrupt and self-serving leaders are a reflection of our lack of our devotion to religion.

Do you have the isnad for this?

Thanks for the link to the Michael Morgan book.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Do you have the isnad for this?

Thanks for the link to the Michael Morgan book.

It will take some time for me to find it SAM. I will send it by PM once I do.

 

[wayne92587]

- Islamic Golden Age
- Islamic Science
- Islamic Math
- Islamic Art


You see, in the Islamic countries the religous establishment have done a wonderful job of fooling everyone into thinking about things incorrectly. Unlike the rest of the world, they paint almost everything as being "Islamic". Gotta wipe your arse? Do so Islamically :bugeye: That's true.

M

Simple enough!

Islam has been hijacked, by False Prophets, Fundamentalist, Men born of Machismo.

Islamic Law, Sharia, has been perverted because Islam has allowed Men with unclean, dirty, hands to touch, to interpret the Koran, by allowing Fundamentalist Extremists, Men born of the dust of the ground, Men with a distorted, perverted, extreme, sense of Manliness, Masculinity, Machismo, to interpret Islamic Law, Sharia; It not being Manly, it being Woman Like, to be submissive, compassionate, Humane.

 

[GeoffP]

A 1200 year "Golden Age".... it's just ridiculous.

:shrug:

Gold is golden.

So is urine.

Which one you experienced during this period depended on what religion you were.

 

[Betrayer0fHope]

I agree with this post, slightly. A few people seem to attribute every good deed done by a Muslim to all of Islam, but a bad deed by them suddenly becomes solely to that person or country, and never to all of Islam.

 

[S.A.M.]

Probably because a contribution to a civilisation is different from a criminal act.

Unless of course, you believe that every man in prison in your society should share his prison term with you and nothing of the history of your society has anything to do with you.

 

[GeoffP]

Probably because a contribution to a civilisation is different from a criminal act.

This is an absurd counter-argument. What if that act is not criminal, but merely horribly immoral and wrong?

You can't pick and choose.

 

[S.A.M.]

Okay, you're a partaker in every horrible act done by Christians/athiests anywhere. Oops you belong to a communal religion. Now Islam? Its non-intercessory.

 

[GeoffP]

Okay, you're a partaker in every horrible act done by Christians/athiests anywhere.

You dodged the issue again: the "Golden Age" was golden if you were a male and muslim. Otherwise, not so golden. What you're saying is that you refuse to accept this point, so you're in the philosophy of "islam uber alles". Now, me, I recognize that not all acts done by Christians and secularists everywhere was right. Should I harp on like an idiot about some mythical "Golden Age" that was only Golden for people like me?

Its non-intercessory.

Yeah, unfortunately for everyone else.

 

[S.A.M.]

You dodged the issue again: the "Golden Age" was golden if you were a male and muslim. Otherwise, not so golden. What you're saying is that you refuse to accept this point, so you're in the philosophy of "islam uber alles". Now, me, I recognize that not all acts done by Christians and secularists everywhere was right. Should I harp on like an idiot about some mythical "Golden Age" that was only Golden for people like me?

Yeah, unfortunately for everyone else.

You assume it was only golden for males and Muslims. Coincidentally, it was an era of much wealth and success in non-Muslim India and the Jewish golden age also overlaps here. Note that the only golden age the Jews had was under Muslims.

 

[GeoffP]

Was it really their "Golden Age"? Maimoinides makes a lot of how nice islam was to Jewish people, but then recants. And whether or not everyone had a lot of monetary success was kind of irrelevant if they were second class citizens. It's like being a cotton slave: the farm might be doing great! but you're still a slave.

 

[S.A.M.]

I wonder what Maimoinides would think if he were in Gaza.

 

[GeoffP]

He probably would disapprove.

Then again, he probably would disapprove of the Jewish condition in the ME right up to 1948. What's your point? That Gaza is bad now, so it was ok for islam to be vicious to the conquered earlier? Don't be an idiot.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, that Maimonedes was better off than the Gazans [or even the al-Kurds in East Jerusalem], and according to you, Israel is a "democracy".

 

[GeoffP]

Was he? Who knows? We do know, however, that the islamic golden age wasn't golden for everyone. Again, it's like slavery: sure, 1855 seemed like a good year in Virginia...but not if you were in a cotton field.

Actually, Israel is a democracy, but I don't think I said that until just now.

 

[disease]

Israel is a partitioned democracy. It has decided as a 'co-ordinated' but wholly disparate group, to afford democratic rights to a certain ethnicity, and exclude all others.

It's an apartheid system rather than a democracy.

 

[Zakia]

Lets Face The Truth!!!!!!!1

amazing just amazing. u guys claim to be so true, so accepting, so broad visioned but u can not see, hear or feel beyond ur pre set limits of jealousy and hatred. ur folks have done a great job in erasing all the facts and figures and incorporating vague data in ur minds. but lets not talk about it. it useless cuz we both wont bear it. lets talk about realities. DIDNT NON MUSLIM SCIENTISTS PROVE ALL THE BASIC FACTS AND FIGURES ALREADY MENTIONED BY THE GREAT MUSLIM SCIENTISTS? DIDNT THEY FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE MUSLIMS AND PROCEEDED FROM WHERE THEY LEFT? the muslims lagged behind cuz of their own weaknesses and ur conspiracies but this does not, in any way, allow u followers to snatch away the credit of all the greay work they have done in different fields of science and technology. come on. be bold enough to face the truth.

 

[S.A.M.]

Israel is a partitioned democracy. It has decided as a 'co-ordinated' but wholly disparate group, to afford democratic rights to a certain ethnicity, and exclude all others.

It's an apartheid system rather than a democracy.

Its not a partitioned democracy, there is no such thing. It is an apartheid state:

The measure known as the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law,[15] passed by the Knesset on 31 July 2003, does not enable the acqusition of Israeli citizenship or residency by a Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza Strip via marriage.[16] The law does allow children from such marriages to live in Israel until age 12, at which age the law requires them to emigrate.[17] This applies equally to a Palestinian spouse of any Israeli citizen, whether Arab or Jewish, but in practise more Israeli Arabs than Israeli Jews marry Palestinians. The law was originally enacted for one year and has been extended, with minor amendments on 21 July 2004, on 31 January 2005, on 27 July 2005 until 31 March 2006, until January, 2007, and until 31 July 2008.[18] Justification for the law has been the alleged mass immigration of West Bank Palestinians into Israel by way of marriage, many of such marriages having been alleged to be fictitious, bigamist or polygamist, in contravention of the law.

The law was upheld in May 2006, by the Supreme Court of Israel on a six to five vote. Israel's Chief Justice, Aharon Barak, sided with the minority on the bench, declaring: "This violation of rights is directed against Arab citizens of Israel. As a result, therefore, the law is a violation of the right of Arab citizens in Israel to equality."[19] Zehava Gal-On, a founder of B'Tselem and a Knesset member with the Meretz-Yachad party, stated that with the ruling "The Supreme Court could have taken a braver decision and not relegated us to the level of an apartheid state."[20] The law was also criticized by Amnesty International[21] and Human Rights Watch.[22]

Adam and Moodley cite the marriage law as an example of how Arab Israelis "resemble in many ways 'Colored' and Indian South Africans."[5] They write: "Both Israeli Palestinians and Colored and Indian South Africans are restricted to second-class citizen status when another ethnic group monopolizes state power, treats the minorities as intrinsically suspect, and legally prohibits their access to land or allocates civil service positions or per capita expenditure on education differentially between dominant and minority citizens."

 

[disease]

Yeah well, I made it up.