So Roman civilization must have been even better, and Egyptian civilization that lasted a few thousand years, must have been the best. — Apollodorus

The Abbassid were one single dynasty, not two dozen dynasties like in the case of Egypt, so the comparison is biased. But yeah, the Egyptians did really well for a long time (with ups and downs).

most of its cultural features were non-Arab. — Apollodorus

Oh please. Most of America's cultural features are not American, if you go that way.

Most of America's cultural features are not American, if you go that way. — Olivier5

Correct. America is a mixture of cultures. That's why no one calls it "great English civilization".

The same applies to the supposed "great Arab civilization". The Abbasid Caliphate was a mixture of Greek, Persian, and Arab elements. Islamic philosophy, for example, was based on Classical Greek philosophy. There were attempts to combine Greek philosophy with Islamic teachings, but that did not make it "Arab".

The other thing is that Islam spread through military invasion and conquest which involved killing, raping, pillaging, enslaving, exploiting and suppressing the conquered populations.

This is why there were numerous uprisings against Arab rule from Spain to Egypt and Persia.

Moreover, Arabs were in fact regarded as backward and uncivilized people by the populations under Arab occupation. For example, in Persia, there was an extensive local literature deriding Arabs for eating snakes, mice, and lizards.

IRANIAN IDENTITY iii. MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC PERIOD – Encyclopaedia Iranica

IMHO I think it is important to take a more objective view of the facts and not get carried away by legends and political propaganda.

Correct. America is a mixture of cultures. That's why no one calls it "great English civilization". — Apollodorus

Every civilization is a mix of cultures, though, except the most primitive perhaps.

The same applies to the supposed "great Arab civilization". The Abbasid Caliphate was a mixture of Greek, Persian, and Arab elements. — Apollodorus

And Berber, and Jewish, and Syriak, and more... but that synchretism was made possible by an Arab language shared by most and under an Arab aristocracy. Even Persian got to be infused with many Arab words and from there on written in the Arabic script.

Most importantly, ISIS and The Taliban are militia war groups and terrorists, even if they weren't Islamists, who would want such leaders? Who would expect anything from their leadership? — Judaka

You seem very well informed and I would like to know how you became informed so I might follow that path?

I have not seen anything that would make me think the Taliban is sophisticated. All my information is about the militia war groups and I am comparing this to nazi Germany. While some great music and philosophy has come from Germany, that degree of sophistication is not reflected in the thugs that gave the nazi party control of Germany. Both look to me like male hormones out of control. The peak of uncontrolled patriarchy. Women may steal each other's children but they do not turn them into warriors and put them on the front line. What ISIS and the Taliban have done is not civilized, and it doesn't seem to matter if they worship the Christian God or Allah, these men, Roman, German, or Afghanistan tribes are a plague to civilization.

I think your question needs to be tweaked. Not who would want such leaders, but under what conditions do such leaders come to power? A hidden question, is the US experiencing conditions that could lead to that kind of power taking control?

Sure. But the Roman Empire lasted much longer than 400 years. — Apollodorus

And were brought down by Muslims, who's state actually still exists even today. :wink:

The Abbasid Caliphate was a mixture of Greek, Persian, and Arab elements. Islamic philosophy, for example, was based on Classical Greek philosophy. There were attempts to combine Greek philosophy with Islamic teachings, but that did not make it "Arab". — Apollodorus

I agree with this. I think the obsession on things "Arab" is a far more modern issue and likely grew out of Pan-Arabism, which has it's origins in the 19th Century and was ever so popular during the 1950's and 1960's during Nasser's rule. I bet the Abbassids didn't think of themselves as Arabic. Islamic culture with a caliphate was naturally universal. And since the Prophet Mohammad was the first ruler of the Caliphate, the bond to a state is obvious in Islam.

So why the insistence of Arabs and Arabism?

Why so?

The answer of course is the most successful Islamic nation that is still among us, even if it doesn't have a Sultan as it's leader. The Ottomans, the Ottoman Empire and modern day Turkey. The guys who actually conquered the last bastion of the Roman empire.

(The neo-ottomanism that a certain Recep Erdogan likes!)

The answer of course is the most successful Islamic nation that is still among us, even if it doesn't have a Sultan as it's leader. The Ottomans, the Ottoman Empire and modern day Turkey. The guys who actually conquered the last bastion of the Roman empire. — ssu

Very interesting! I want more information. How does this tie into a change of attitude that began during 1950-1960? Eisenhower and the establishment of the Military-Industrial complex and using the Cia for the Iranian coup?

https://www.google.com/search?q=eisenhowerhower+Iranian+coup&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=eisenhowerhower+Iranian+coup&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i299l3.20524j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#:~:text=Eisenhower%20approves%20coup,Must%20include%3A%20hower — google

Are we talking about something that is equal to Bush's evil axis that gave the US government permission to do whatever it deemed necessary to get military control of the mid-east?

When we had to stop explaining our imperialism as defending democracy against communist we we needed a new enemy. A small band of renegades led by Bin Laden wasn't good enough, so we associated all of Islam with the terrorist threat we face and this new evil was expertly created by Bush, right? All the time hiding why countries we never heard about were suddenly in our daily news.

Oh please. Most of America's cultural features are not American, if you go that way. — Olivier5

Wow, why did you say that? The US adopted the communist income tax and is now destroying the family to have every adult in the workforce and is talk about the government's responsibility for raising our children. It adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education that shifts power and authority away from individuals to the government. It replaced liberal education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose. It replaced Greek and Roman classical philosophers with German philosophers.

Why would you say what we have is not American? Do you mean this is not the democracy we once defended?

I think your question needs to be tweaked. Not who would want such leaders, but under what conditions do such leaders come to power? A hidden question, is the US experiencing conditions that could lead to that kind of power taking control? — Athena

A lot of my understanding about this topic of historical Islam comes from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60JboffOhaw&ab_channel=CaspianReport

This channel, caspianreport, is probably the best place to learn about geopolitics around the world. There are many interesting videos on the Taliban and Afghanistan, as well. That is the best place for you to go.

I say the Taliban are sophisticated because they know how to use social media, they know how to play the media, they are involved in deeply complicated geopolitical games. It's not a high standard for sophistication but all of these terrorist groups are fairly sophisticated in this sense. It's not as simple as running around with guns and terrorising the innocent, like what you see in Africa. They're far more sophisticated than the Nazi party was before they came to power.

How do groups like ISIS, The Taliban or the Nazi party come to power? The answer is simple and always the same, it's misery and hardship. ISIS took power because of the chaos in Syria and Iraq, the Taliban took power because of the war with the Soviet Union, the Nazi party took power after WW1 and during the great depression.

What protects nations like the US from such events isn't the people or culture, it's the democratic institutions and strong legal system. For the US to become an authoritarian state (in the true sense of the word), would require these institutions to fail. Trump's antics demonstrate just how hard it actually is to disrupt these Western democracies. The system rebuffed his efforts to claim the election was a hoax and the march on the capitol pretty easily, it didn't come close to threatening to change anything. For a Western democracy to fall, something catastrophic would need to occur, not saying that's the only way but it's the most likely way.

And were brought down by Muslims, who's state actually still exists even today. — ssu

Not exactly by Muslims. With the exception of Spain, the West remained mostly under Germanic control. It was the Visigoths that initiated anti-Islamic resistance in Spain. Unfortunately, Franks and other Germanic warlords decided to sack Constantinople in 1204 and the Eastern Roman Empire never fully recovered. It still lasted another two centuries before it fell to the Turks, though.

I think that without help from the West, the East would have fallen to the Turks anyway, whether Muslims or not. The West woke up to reality when the Turks later camped outside Vienna but by then the East was lost.

I think the obsession on things "Arab" is a far more modern issue and likely grew out of Pan-Arabism, which has it's origins in the 19th Century and was ever so popular during the 1950's and 1960's during Nasser's rule. I bet the Abbassids didn't think of themselves as Arabic. — ssu

Well, England's Fabian Socialists (the Fabian Society and the Labour Party) had this great idea of converting the Arabs to socialism in order to defeat capitalism. The result was Arab Socialism and Nationalism.

Of course, the Abbasid Caliphate was more Persian than Arab and after 934 when the Persian Buyid rulers took over, the Arab caliphs were mere figureheads. This is why I'm saying that the Abbasid Caliphate was only part-Arab and later non-Arab, hence the "great Arab civilization" is really just a myth. It is more modern political construct than historical fact.

And, yes, Turkey likes to imagine itself as the leader of the Islamic world. It was Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II, who held the title of Caliph, who instigated the Muslim revivalist movement in British India that later spawned the Caliphate Movement, Islamism, Jihadism, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan's Islamic Party (Jamaat-e Islami) and, eventually (with US-UK assistance) al-Qaeda and Taliban.

As a matter of fact, Turkey after WW2 was on its way out. Unfortunately, the Rockefellers and their front man Kissinger decided to rebuild Turkey in order to put pressure on the Soviets and expand their worldwide petroleum and banking empire.

It was Kissinger who introduced the idea of a "Turkish world from the Adriatic to North China" and this was picked up by Erdogan who saw that now was the chance to rebuild the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate with himself as Sultan and Caliph:

From the Adriatic Sea to the Great Wall of China – TEPAV

So why the insistence of Arabs and Arabism? — ssu

Vice versa, why the insistence (among some) on erasing Arabs from history? Give to Mohamad what belongs to Mohamad.

Give to Mohamad what belongs to Mohamad. — Olivier5

I agree. Give him Islam. :smile:

What you are talking about is called "the Golden Age of Islam", not "great Arab civilization". As already explained, there is a very good reason for this.

Nothing to do with "erasing" anything.

that synchretism was made possible by an Arab language shared by most and under an Arab aristocracy. — Olivier5

The syncretism was Persian and had started during the Second Golden Era (498–622) of the Sasanian Empire, i.e. long before Islam:

The Sasanian kings were patrons of letters and philosophy. Khosrau I had the works of Plato and Aristotle, translated into Pahlavi, taught at Gundishapur, and read them himself.

Under Khosrau I, the Academy of Gundishapur, which had been founded in the 5th century, became "the greatest intellectual center of the time", drawing students and teachers from every quarter of the known world. Nestorian Christians were received there, and brought Syriac translations of Greek works in medicine and philosophy. The medical lore of India, Persia, Syria and Greece mingled there to produce a flourishing school of therapy.

Artistically, the Sasanian period witnessed some of the highest achievements of Iranian civilization. Much of what later became known as Muslim culture, including architecture and writing, was originally drawn from Persian culture. At its peak, the Sasanian Empire stretched from western Anatolia to northwest India (today Pakistan), but its influence was felt far beyond these political boundaries. Sasanian motifs found their way into the art of Central Asia and China, the Byzantine Empire, and even Merovingian France. Islamic art however, was the true heir to Sasanian art, whose concepts it was to assimilate while at the same time instilling fresh life and renewed vigor into it.

Sasanian Empire - Wikipedia

I love your argument and will check out the link. I think we need a different thread to discuss authoritarianism. We disagree on the subject because I think education is a big part of democracy. We can not defend our democracy if we do not know what we need to defend. Would the title "authoritarianism versus democracy" or "culture versus authority over the people"?

Very interesting! I want more information. How does this tie into a change of attitude that began during 1950-1960? * * * Not exactly by Muslims. - It still lasted another two centuries before it fell to the Turks, though. — Athena

The fall of Constantinople was what I referred to being "the last bastion of the Roman empire" to be conquered. And Turks then were muslims.

Why Pan-Arabism was so hip is because naturally you had had Middle East under Ottoman control, which then in WW1 had been taken away from them. The Arab revolt (with the famous Lawrence of Arabia) was a clear sign of Arab nationalism and that the people were not at all loyal and devoted subjects of the Sultan. And in the 1950's Nasser and the military coup that overthrew the King of Egypt were basically nationalists and later socialists, not at all islamists. So hardly the slogan would be to form a new Caliphate as the old Ottoman Empire with a Sultan hadn't worked, was revolted against and had lost to the West.

(Nasser trying to make Egypt and Syria one single country. At least the flags are similar still.)


Also, it should be noted, that Kemalism of Kemal Atatürk was for westernization as a way to defend Turkey from outside powers and the religious aspects of the Ottoman Empire was seen as a reason for the weakness of the Empire.

(A Kemalist propaganda picture. Down with the Old, back then...)

Vice versa, why the insistence (among some) on erasing Arabs from history? Give to Mohamad what belongs to Mohamad. — Olivier5

People look to find from history things that suite them for the present.

And in the 1950's Nasser and the military coup that overthrew the King of Egypt were basically nationalists and later socialists, not at all islamists. — ssu

I think you are mixing up your dates, and Arabs with Turks :smile:

The All-India Caliphate Committee was founded in 1919.

The All-India Muslim League that started the Caliphate Movement was backed by Lord Morley (Secretary of State for Indian Affairs), Lord Minto (Governor General of India), Mahatma Gandhi, Annie Besant, and other members of the Fabian Society.

And the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928.

Muslim revivalism and Islamism were well underway before Nasser. And it was encouraged by England's Fabian Socialists who wanted to break up the British Empire and transform it into a worldwide Socialist Commonwealth. The same Fabian Socialists encouraged Ireland's Republicans and Nationalists and other similar movements in Africa and elsewhere.

"Arab Nationalism" was not what you think, it was an instrument for the propagation of socialism ....

It was still under Arab rulers.

The Persian were beaten by the student of Aristotle, and under Greek control for a while; so of course they assimilated Greek philosohers before the Arab...

The synchretism of al Andalus was not Persian in any way. So what was it? Spanish?

People look to find from history things that suite them for the present. — ssu

As you must be aware, we don't read history as written by the Arabs.

E.g. The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, by Amin Maalouf is interesting in that it present the Christians as the bad guys.

I think you are mixing up your dates, and Arabs with Turks :smile: — Apollodorus

?

I was referring to the Egyptian revolution of 1952. the military coup that topple king Farouk. Egypt had already been a kingdom during the era of the British protectorate.

As you must be aware, we don't read history as written by the Arabs. — Olivier5

Who reads history in other language than English? I read naturally Finnish, but even Finnish or German would be difficult to follow.

E.g. The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, by Amin Maalouf is interesting in that it present the Christians as the bad guys. — Olivier5

Actually, the real bad guys are the Mongols during that era. Saladin isn't the great hero, the Mamluk Sultan Baibars is the great here.

Another example of the West thinking always it's the center of everything. ( I remember even OBL himself was comparing the US invasion of Iraq to the Mongol invasion, not the crusades.)

Who reads history in other language than English? — ssu

Err, inter alia the French, Italians, Spaniards, Germans, and the Arabs of course.

Yes.

I'm not so good in languages. :yikes:

Afghans have this gift. I've met some pretty regular folks who spoke five languages.

Also, it should be noted, that Kemalism of Kemal Atatürk was for westernization as a way to defend Turkey from outside powers and the religious aspects of the Ottoman Empire was seen as a reason for the weakness of the Empire.

If Kemalism was in any way inspired by Ataturk's agnosticism, and Ba'athism inspired by Aflaq's Christianity, it could be said that these types of Arab-nationalist ideologies (inspired by Western thought) were against Islamism in state affairs.

The Persian were beaten by the student of Aristotle, and under Greek control for a while; so of course they assimilated Greek philosohers before the Arab... — Olivier5

Exactly. So it was the Persians that had Plato and Aristotle translated before the Arabs. The Arabs merely continued what the Persians had already started. And the same applies to architecture, arts, etc.

Islamic architecture was based on Byzantine and Persian models. Islamic art including “Arabesque” decorations was based on Roman, Byzantine, and Persian traditions. Islamic gardens were Persian and Greek. Islamic philosophy and medicine were Greek, etc. The main Arab contribution was language and script, and this is not enough to make an “Arab civilization”.

The synchretism of al Andalus was not Persian in any way. So what was it? Spanish? — Olivier5

Good question. Maybe we should try to find out.

By definition, “cultural syncretism” is a mixture of cultures. So, for starters, it was not “Arab”. The Spanish were (partly) under Arab rule but many were Christians who had their own culture and language.

All available evidence points to the fact that in this period [8th century] popular works of medicine, agriculture, astrology, and geography were translated from Latin into Arabic. Many of these texts must have been derived from the Etymologies of Isidore of Sevilla and from other Christian writers. In the 9th century the situation changed abruptly: the Andalusians, who traveled east in order to comply with the injunction to conduct a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lifetimes, took advantage of their stay in those regions to enhance their knowledge, which they then introduced into their native country.

Spain - Culture of Muslim Spain | Britannica

If the Arabs of Spain had such an advanced culture as you believe, why did they need to introduce knowledge from elsewhere? What they introduced, e.g. philosophy, was non-Arab. And non-Arab influence grew over time, so that at the height of the Islamic Golden Age, non-Arab influence was strongest and Arab influence weakest.

Take philosophy, for example.

There was no Arab philosophy until al-Kindi (9th century). And al-Kindi became a philosopher after being appointed to supervise the translation by Christian scholars of Greek philosophical works into Arabic.

Al-Kindi | Wikipedia

So, it took the Arabs 200 years to develop a philosophy, and only after coming into contact with Greek philosophy in Persia!

I was referring to the Egyptian revolution of 1952. the military coup that topple king Farouk. Egypt had already been a kingdom during the era of the British protectorate. — ssu

I think you are not paying attention.

You keep forgetting a “small detail”, namely the British Empire, i.e. the largest empire in world history!

It is important to bear in mind two things:

1. How the British Empire worked.

2. That British policy in India, Mid East, Africa, etc. was controlled by the Fabian Socialists of the Fabian Society and Labour Party. Sidney Webb, co-founder of the Fabian Society and Labour Party, was Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Why do you think the British Empire became “British Commonwealth” under Labour rule?

Because the Fabian Socialists and their Liberal allies had always wanted to organize the world into a few economic and political blocs or “commonwealths” and later federate them into a world state. The idea of “world government” or “international government” was promoted by the Fabian Society and the Labour Party from the early 1900’s.

The same people encouraged Arab Nationalism and Islamism as explained in my previous post.

Any Arab you happen to like?

If Kemalism was in any way inspired by Ataturk's agnosticism, and Ba'athism inspired by Aflaq's Christianity, it could be said that these types of Arab-nationalist ideologies (inspired by Western thought) were against Islamism in state affairs. — NOS4A2

I'm not an expert, but I would agree. During those time when nationalism (& socialism) were the new in the Middle East, Islamism likely was seen as negatively, even if religion wasn't dismissed (as in the West).

Once those failed, back to the "good 'ol ideas".

I think you are not paying attention. — Apollodorus

I think you lost me.

British Empire? Yes, Egypt was a protectorate. Yet don't forget the French in the wider picture. But anyway, decolonization is a rather different matter.

I did not want to destroy the Bamiyan Buddha. In fact, some foreigners came to me and said they would like to conduct the repair work of the Bamiyan Buddha that had been slightly damaged due to rains. This shocked me. I thought, these callous people have no regard for thousands of living human beings—the Afghans who are dying of hunger, but they are so concerned about non-living objects like the Buddha. This was extremely deplorable. That is why I ordered its destruction. Had they come for humanitarian work, I would have never ordered the Buddha's destruction. — Mullah Omar

The Taliban could be described as crazy but...not that crazy...yet.

You could try making a thread about what's required for democracy, I think one can make an argument for culture being important but only way before the actual democracy has fallen. Most democracies don't even get off the ground, they start without the necessary legal institutions to defend them and fall into authoritarianism from the getgo. It's just impossible for civilians to investigate and redemy corruption, to
charge politicians with criminal activity, to prevent laws from being passed or repealed, at least as a long-term strategy.

In recent times, we've seen populations organise through social media to demand democracy, such as with the Arab Springs, but it did not result in any democracy, only chaos and anarchy after the authoritarians were deposed. The citizens can organise demonstrations and revolts, but they cannot manage a long-term democracy, that requires the necessary institutions and laws.