why doesn't the media ever talk about the Islamic golden age roughly (700AD-1400) were the middle east was practically the hub of the world at that time and shaped Europe in later centuries. in fact historians all know that a main reason the renaissance took place in Europe was be cause of the Muslims in the middle east.

Yeah while it was the dark ages in Europe it was a golden age next door. And if it wasn't for internal wars in the Middle East they would have stayed the super power of western Eurasia. Single countries in the Middle East defeated armies of over half of Europe. Now that is a demonstration of military power.

I think this ignorance about the Middle East is because of romanticizing the west, but through out history up to the renaissance, the Middle East has been more powerful than Europe and has had more advanced technologies. Yeah the west talks about Rome but few know that at the time of the Roman Empire the Sassanid Empire of Persia was stronger and had better quality in both arms and army management, you can go and look up quotes from roman generals about the fearsomeness of the Persian Calvary which they later copied.

oh yeah and another reason would be that it would have showed that Islam worked better at the beginning than Christianity.

Nothing wrong with Muslims during their golden age - they can have it again - Free elections and womens rights will get you over the hump

No offence but Iran was way better of Before Islam thats just a fact. Look at the Persians now. Bunch of theocratic fundamentalists

Zoroastrianism

i know of the restrictions the current goverment in iran but it isn't because islam, and you are wrong about iran before and after islam, iran before islam seems greater because it was unmatched but for the most of the 1300 years of iran being islamic i has had great and golden ages especally middle ages except mongol invasion. it is just that they weren't as large as before and for a long time they shared their goverment with neighboring arab regions which wasn't always bad.


what bothers me is that people automatically think of anything islamic as poor. and thats while the middle east was the best place to live in, in the middle ages.

you are neglicting roughly a thousand years of success for iran after islamic invasion. the modern mess of iran is roughly 200 years old and it is not because of islam it is because of corrupt dictators and years and years of civil war. i mean for some time in iran when ever a king died a ne civil war started.

I dont know but there seems to be awfully many programs on TV about the islam and the middle east when it was great...

And many people well at least Europeans are aware of the role of the middle east way back and it is taught in school(in decent average schools), but that doesnt really change anything because of what people are seeing today...

Wasnt the Sassanid Empire Zoroastrian?

(mind you I always found Cyrus the Great of Persia to be an interesting character)

it was a mix of Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, Jews, and persianized roman cults..

anyway, wikipedia has an interesting part on the empire:

yeah they were but i was talking about how the middle east was always stornger than europe up until renaissance

Where did you hear that from? Persia did decline as a military power after the Muslim conquests, but the Persian culture itself experienced a Rennaissance during the Islamic period. The golden age of Islamic culture was also a golden age for Persian culture, when the Persian arts, sciences and literature reached a new peak, and produced the greatest poets and scientists in Persian history (i.e. al-Khwarizmi, Ferdowsi, Biruni, Avicenna, Omar Khayyam, al-Tusi, etc.).

The theocratic fundamentalism in Iran is quite a recent phenomenon. In the early 20th century, Iran was pretty much on its way to becoming a progressive society, but it was only after the 1978 Islamic Revolution of Iran that it became a backwards society.

good comment, the only thing i will add is that iran hasn't totally gone backwards, it is just that they have slowed down and been set back as a result of euro and american imperializm and also 8 years of bloody war with iraq that really damaged both countries. a lot of fundamentalism about islam is also a result of going to the extreme against anything america stands for

Many of the so-called "Greek" and "Roman" technologies actually came from Egypt when it was under Greek and Roman rule.

The West is responsible for today's fundamentalism. Alot of Arab countries were on the verge of Westernization, only UAE and Qatar made it all the way.

I learned about that in my religion class here in Ontario. About Caliphates and whatnot. Although I suppose it's because I go to a Catholic school. We're guilty about everything. We spent more than a day talking about how the Jews in Spain flourished under Muslim rule and how the Muslims were very tolerant of other religions, but once it was reconquered by Catholics the Jews were either expelled or killed during the Spanish inquisition. :/

It's ironic how at one time, Muslim countries were more advanced and tolerant and Christian countries were stuck in a dark age, and now it's the reverse, with Christian countries being more advanced and tolerant and Muslim countries now stuck in a dark age.

what you say is somewhat right with the difference that the west isn't as tolerant as you d think, but it is true the roles are kind of reversed.

the west IS tolerant... you see mosques here and there, however, you wont hear me praying our father in saudi, dont want my head cut off

do u see any mosques in the Vatican.
well the whole of Saudi is like the Vatican to the Muslims.
Beside even during the time of the prophet Mohammad(peace be upon him) there where practicing Jews and Christians living with the Muslim and nothing happened to them.

yeah good point. plus the west is more racist than the the middle east cause middleeasterns have been working with blacks, asians and whites long before the white caucasians of northern europe. even romans were more race tolerant than the northern europeans of a thousand years later.

I personally think that the west is TOO tolerant in some aspects.

I think Islam played a part within its sphere of influence. I think Christianity and Hinduism and so forth did the same within theirs. But I very much believe (yes my opinion) that religion while playing an important part of civilizing once small tribal groups into a larger unified whole, overall played a far lesser role than regional cultures independent of the religious cultural effect.

It is to simplistic to carve the world between 700 C.E. and 1400 C.E. into simply "Christian" vs "Muslim." Other cultures existed in the Americas prior to European (along with Islamic Moors) colonization. Other cultures existed in the Eastern worlds also - including Christian.

If you read the historical records Muslims conquering Christian Egypt also learned from the ethnic Coptic Christian scholars within Egypt. The bulk of the educated scholars that served the great Mongol Khans were Nesotorian Christian Mongols. And it is not as if no one in this world - Christian, Muslim, Buddhist et cetera - didn't learn any thing from the works of Hindu scholars.

Furthermore, speak as some one that is half black and half white (German) what is really the "Dark Ages" other than a loaded term meant to hold bias? Exactly when where my Germanic ancestors "enlightened" before the so called "Dark Ages"? They never were and the hold term is fundamentally wrong when it is implied to the whole of Europe. Because in fact, my Germanic ancestors became progressively more civilized as time went on. I mean by that, Germanic and Celtic peoples did not go backward after the fall of Rome they went very much forward. And let me take the time to add that any civilization such as Rome that had organized gladiatorial events and massive "circuses" for the amusement of people ought be questioned as to how "civilized" or "enlightened" they were. In the Middle Ages, for whatever its faults, slavery decreased (and the city of ancient Rome's population was made up of something like 30% or 40% in slaves) drastically and gladiatorial events per se ceased.

Byzantium and Eastern Christians from Syria to China need be kept separate - in context - from the Germanic Christians that inherited their pagan "warrior" and "great chief" culture. Likewise, the great Mogul empires, Morrish empires, and silk Turkish flags with muskets and organized professional military that led the way of the great Sultan conquests, ought be kept separate - in context - from the Islamic Fulani and Afar who remained (and remain to this day as the Afar tribes go) very primitive to the European West in technology, law, and organization of government.



U.S. television programs actually often due speak about Islam in its epic age. It usually concentrates on the Moors and so forth. Just as when U.S. television programs almost exclusively only talk about the Catholic Papacy in the era when the Italians took control of the Papacy. In both cases, the fuller picture of both religions historicity is left almost entirely empty.

I would prefer to see more programs on Islam as a European expressed religion in say the Balkan. Or the Turkish pirate ships that traveled so far to invade small towns in Ireland. Or of the actual height of the Catholic Papacy which was when the Germans were Popes. Or of Mongolian Christian wives influencing their Animistic or Buddhist Mongol husbands. But tv is meant for propaganda and or intrigue and less for deeper, broader, education.


I also would caution giving full credit for the Renaissance to Islam. The Renaissance in large part was a reglorification of the ancient period of Rome and Greece including its culture of large scale slavery. The Renaissance was largely financed by the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade. To also keep this in context, it should be understood, no one during that time period designated their rough era as the "Renaissance." Splitting the world up into these eras of labels such as the "Dark Ages," "Renaissance," and "Modern era" are all fairly modern inventions of white European/American men. To give you a perfect example, do you realize we no longer live in the "Modern era"? Scholars say the "Modern Era" ended in the 1960's when the United States sent man to the moon. Ever since we have been living in the dawn of a new age.

So, given we are in this "new age" do you feel as though U.S. society is 100% disconnected from the 1950's? Do you here people running around clammering about they are living in a new and brilliant enlightened era? I sure don't.

My point is I would be cautious in placing to much weight on these grad terms some white guy with a Ph.D. title produces and tries to convince you is the Gods honest only truth.

If we are so damn smart and sure of everything on a historical timeline basis, then why the h*ell can't a jury in a court room with thousands of pages of testimony and living eye witness accounts know beyond all reasonable doubt if O.J. Simpson was guilty or not? How come with all our advanced technologies and advanced criminologist education and advanced investigative departments and security service... how come we can't say for once and for all beyond all reasonable doubt who in the h*ll killed President JFK? Yeah, but some f*cker with a Ph.D who has read only 80 surviving piece of manuscript in a dead dialect (if not language) and dead culture can know for sure what the h*ll happened 1,000 years ago.

i will comment on the germanic thing. what you say is true the germanic people did in fact have a more civilized state in the early middle ages than earler times but the thing is they were one of the top most uncivilized people of the world before that and they were a large step sown from roman era. and that is that romans had stopped slavery (mostly due to christainity) before the germanic invasion and the germanic invasion lead to many more killing than what was common in even early roman era. celts should be seperat from germanic since they were a bit more civilized than germanic they really just share the wild fighting techniques the germans used but they had better weapons better housing and great metal work. even roman were impressed at some of the celtic weapons. some of the germanic tribes near what is today netherland learned weapon making from celts. so celts are on another level from germanics please do not confuse.

and for why we use eras it is because there is significant change in the course decades. and we never intended to actually put an exact date on the start of an era.

i ll talk about the rest of your comment later

The Jews never entirely left from "Spain," although most did. The Inquisition in Spain hardly killed off most Jews - regardless of the institutions injustices or justices.

Expelling Jews from Spain was, given the time period and technologies (including slow communications), not entirely bad on a military and political level. Does Spain experience all these centuries later anything like that of the Balkans? Hardly.

You give me swords, you give me horses, you give me nothing for communication but primitive forms of speed, and put me in charge after reconquest of the lands of my forefathers and I'm expelling every last son of b*tch I even perceive of potentially licking the lips of my enemies. Politically incorrect? Go tell the Amerindians from Brazil to the United States their forefathers did the right thing by being so *politically correct.*

Warfare ain't won by political correctness. Warfare is won by who controls the territory at the end of the day.

I'm not going to tell a boxer to punch lightly on his formidable foe... I'm going to tell him to knock the son of a b*tches teeth out - and fu-k everybody in his corner. That is... if you believe in the Chicago way.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but my perception of the Celts is that they lived not much different (in material comfort & sophistication of government) than the Germanic peoples. In fact the Irish and Scottish once seemed to resemble some characteristic of North American (in the U.S.) Amerindians.



I understand the potential purpose, but the purpose becomes lost when one starts comprehending historical timelines simply as "stop and go's." I do not believe the natural movement of history and peoples societies operate that way. I believe it is a fiction we create in our mind to help us comprehend sh*t we don't understand.

But that's just my opinion.

I may be wrong here, but are you trying to justify the mass-murder of civilians during the Reconquista? As far as I know, if there is no evidence of early Muslim conquerers ever resorting to the mass-murder of civilians, then there is no justification for later Christian conquerers to resort to it either.

There is no comparison between Spain and the Americas. The indigineous Iberian language was already extinct by the time the Reconquisita took place. The Christian Spaniards were no more native to Iberia than the Moors or Jews there at the time.

Boxing is not about trying to knock the opponent's teeth out. If that were true, then there wouldn't be any need for mouth guards.

No, I'm not justifying any mass killing of civilians. I don't do it for the U.S. fire bombings of half of Japan.

Turks killed plenty of non-combatants so far as I know.

When the Muslims (I believe they may have been Turks but I'm not sure) fled from from what is Tours, France long before the crusades ever began, they slaughtered man, woman, and child as they left.



Sure there is. And the Christian Spanish were as *native* to their Castilian and other lands as I am to the United States. Hence, any suggestion invading Russian Army has as much claim to the United States as me is ludicrous - at least by most U.S. peoples minds. Supposedly some "terrorists" that were Muslims bombed the Twin Towers in New York. The United States (that vast majority in the U.S.) believed this was enough to send U.S. military to bomb the sh*t out of Afghanistan and launch and invasion of the country. Not only that the U.S. has now went on a global jihad against "terrorism."

I propose the word "terrorism" is a matter of semantics, and that when the Moors invaded the groups of kingdoms and region collectively known as "Spain" or "Espana," they did so in some part by manifesting *terror.* Though it is true the Moors did not face great resistance, nonetheless thousand of white Spanish were shipped out of country as slaves. That constitutes *terror* to me. The Spanish Christians suffered an actual occupation and people sent off to slavery and the humiliation of paying extra *taxes* for being Christian. The United States in 9-11 suffered nothing close to what the Spanish did. Yet people of the U.S. waisted no time in getting their panties in a bunch. We are f*ckin Iraq still to this day - and we politically and militarily connected our reasons to invade Iraq with the 9-11 affair.

The Spanish had as much right to kick teeth in as the Allies did in Dresden and Hiroshima and Tokyo. Yet these Allie affairs are held as heroic actions of freedom!



Ah, but I'm involved in boxing, and anyone involved in boxing knows that plenty of professional boxers in fact have their teeth knocked out. I've viewed cats with missing teeth (from previous boxing fights) with my own eyes. The boxers job is to try and knock teeth out, to hit the liver if he can, to knock his opponent flat out (KO) if he can. It's the job of the doctors and officials to implement rules and gear to *decrease* the damage done in the ring.

And if you ever put on a pair of professional 16 oz or 12 oz boxing gloves you'll quickly realize they are designed to *protect the boxers hands* (and not the opponents face) while allowing for force to be transfered into the opponent. My 16 oz pro training gloves are *harder* (don't really "give") than most the supposedly amature (sp?) training boxing gloves in gyms I have put on or been hit with.

I was referring to the early Arab and Moorish conquests during the "Islamic golden age". The early Arab and Moorish conquerers were trying to spread their religion and/or convert the peoples they've conquered, rather than killing them (unlike the Christian conquerers during the Crusades and Inquisitions). I haven't seen any evidence that women and children were killed during the Battle of Tours either.


The Moors were living in Spain for almost eight centuries before the Inquisition, and the Jews were living there for even longer. It would be ridiculous to consider them as being "foreign" to Spain after such a long period of time (note that the term "Moors" was used for all Muslims, regardless of ethnicity). The Christians, Muslims and Jews were all native to Spain at the time, the only key difference being religion, so there is still no justification for the mass-murder of Muslim and Jewish civilians (and recent Christian converts) during the Spanish Inquisition.

The extra tax that Christians and Jews were charged in Islamic Spain was equivalent to the charity tax that Muslims were obligated to pay. The taxes they paid were no greater than the previous Visigoth rulers of Spain either. Slavery was also nothing new at the time; it already existed long before the Moorish invasion (note that both Muslims and non-Muslims were part of the Arab slave trade). There is no evidence that Christians and Jews were being persecuted in Islamic Spain (besides the slave trade which applied to Muslims as well and was happening almost everywhere else). In fact, Muslim, Jewish and Christian writers who either lived in or visited Islamic Spain during the Middle Ages all seemed to agree that it was the most tolerant and prosperous part of Europe at the time (Christians there too were more prosperous than Christians elsewhere in Europe).


As far as I know, boxing is about trying to knock the opponent out, not his teeth. Knocking the teeth out isn't quite as effective as going for the temple or the chin.

Know the Battle of Tours was an amazing victory wre the Franks some how beat supposedly 30,000 or so horsemen by forning in a square with pikes. I doubt it was actually 30,000 horsemen but I suppose we can conclude it was an force far larger that what Charles Martel had.

To my understanding it was the fleeing of Tours and what is now France (which took quite a long time) whence Muslims force ever so often cut down noncombatants. I would not know why it is so hard to believe. A look at human nature in war shows people can do a lot of cruel things (and also great merciful acts also). Every Muslim I doubt had the benevolent heart of Salahdin (sp?). We can look at Muslims today killing non-combatants. What religion one professes does not mean all the followers that are in military arms will restrain themselves from madness. In fact one of the reasons the Crusaders were so destructive I don't doubt, is because they were not a *professional military force.* Ask any NCO or officer in today's military and they will tell you to decrease war crimes the most fundamental essential is good leadership. War crimes are stopped on the ground by good NCO's not by kings, queens, or Presidents.

I'm unaware the Crusades or Inquisition went around committing genocide. The slaughter at Jerusalem and few other places was quite repugnant but it was nothing of any greater awe than the notorious carpet bombings of WWII. The Crusades never even attempted to do anything like the British colonization of India or the Spanish colonization of the Americas or even anything on par with the aggressive colonization efforts of Islam which was much more of a an Crusade. The Christian crusaders took a few cities here and there. They never attempted to colonize Saudi Arabia. But we know Islam did attempt to take Rome and took every other ancient See of Christendom while at the same time colonizing large swaths of regions (like European colonials).



The Spanish Inquisition only had authority over baptized Christians. It did not have the authority to try Muslims or Jews. And the Inquisition was popular amongst most Catholics and it is a great exaggeration to imply the Inquisition wiped Catholics out of Spain and every other country by mass killings. Catholics preferred being tried by the Inquisition rather than the secular courts, because by-in-large they were treated better plus got free a defense.

The number of peoples killed in the Inquisition in Spain wouldn't even make bleep on the radar screen in todays world. In fact if you look at who were victims of the Inquisition most in places like Mexico, it was mestizos and mulattos like myself not Jews or Moors (though Jewish conversos did get tried and put to death In Mexico) and you don't see me feeling historically victimized. In fact Jewish conversos could become clergy in Mexico, however, mulattos were not allowed to.

I got a suggestion... instead of people distracting from the light of what that Star of David flying over the flag of the ancient Palestinian lands are doing to Arabs, by constantly talking about Jews historical mistreatment by everyone in the world, why not contend with what can be changed today: Israeli policy and not what the hell the Spanish did centuries ago. Seeing as that it was predominately Jewish conversos that ran the slave trade in the Spanish Americas, I'm sure many of them profited quite well off old Espana.



Yeah, slavery was nothing new. And? You take anyone from their home and sell them into bondage in foreign land it's a terrorizing experience in my eyes.

The evidence Christians in Spain felt the need to throw off the Islamic yoke is the fact that they did so. And fought long for it.

Where they effective? History decides that. Where the Amerindians successful? History decides that. Spain is quite fine today, for the most part, it sure is far better than Kosovo or even Iraq or Iran. Would secular Spain today have topless beaches if the "intolerant" Catholic majority was replaced by the "tolerant" Muslims of Turkey or Iran or Albania? I don't know.

Do you have any sources to support the claim that non-combatants were killed during or after the Battle of Tours? I'm not trying to say that all early Arab/Moorish conquerers were as benevolent as Saladin, but there just seems to be hardly any records to suggest they murdered civilians during their conquests.

The difference between the early Muslim conquests and the Crusades/Reconquisita is that the former intended to convert or colonize non-Muslims, while the latter intended to wipe out non-Christians (and Christians of different sects, as well as new converts). It wasn't Christianity itself that was to blame, but the extremists who were acting in the name of Christianity (much like Muslim extremists today).


It was the smaller Christian kingdoms to the north and east of al-Andalus that were attempting to conquer it, not the Christians actually living in al-Andalus itself. Muslims, Jews and Christians are known to have co-existed peacefully in al-Andalus, in what is known as the period of La Convivencia. Neither Christians nor Jews were being persecuted in al-Andalus, and this is evident from the numerous literature from the time. It can't really be compared to the Reconquista which persecuted/expelled Muslims and Jews or the Inquisition which persecuted recent Chrisitian converts.

it's wired how western people want to constantly say that muslims killed civilians in all their history. while if you look in the middle east you ll see communities of any religions who have lived there for over a thousand years while in europe muslims have always been killed just because of being muslim. you can barly find safe communites of muslims in europe who have lived there for more than a hundered years. and those who live in europe are discriminated against.


the thing is, europeans in general are both racist and against islam. if you are white but muslim you will be treated harshly and if you are just racially middle eastern or even just middle eastern looking but you are christain you are still looked down upon.

middle easterns have been far less racist than whites through out history. they have had slaves as war loot but they don't treat someone differently on the basis of appearance and religion.

and the modern extremist activities are a product of antieuropeanism. some fool just want to oppose anything that is related to europe and it has nothing to do with islam at all. in fact islam has specificly said that people of christainity and judiasm should be treated fairly.

as i said some muslism are just pissed off, they are in a $hitty situation and they want action, they don't want to sit around. and it sure is easy for westerners to point a finger at them while they sleep on the riches of the world. europe would have been no where near so rich as it is if it hadn't used the rest of the world. and they still do to this day just in a far less violent way.

One thing for sure the Middle East has some very good books on the occult.

what i never heard that, it is interesting if true.

Yes its interesting mostly works on astrology and numerology but there are other works as well.

Here's a list of some authors:
Al-Battani
Al-Biruni
Albubather
Alchabitius
Al-fadl ibn Naubakht
'Ali ibn Ridwan
Al-Kindī
Arzachel
Berossus
Haly Abenragel
Ibn Arabi
Ibn Yunus
Ibrahim al-Fazari
Ja'far ibn Muhammad Abu Ma'shar al-Balkhi
Mashallah
Muhammad al-Fazari
Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi
Naubakht
Sharafeddin Tusi

Here's a list of some alchemists:
Jabir Ibn Hayyan, the "true Geber" (Iraq, ca. 721 - ca. 815)
Al-Razi
Alfarabi
Abu Ali al-Husain ibn Abdallah ibn Sina

@ bold: I can't find a sufficient source. But I will present a "source" that is secondary word of mouth. The only reason I present it is to "point in the direction" so to speak, because I believe the slaughter of men in the Pyrenees this person speaks of maybe what I was thinking of but remembering some what in correctly. Link of "source" (please note I'm not in any way endorsing this book in this link)

(bold my emphasis)



That aside, I will present a more credible source, an article (or link to one), but unrelated to Muslim force movement into Tours or out of Tours. This article is a book review on the book: "The Legacy of Jihad." I've known about the book for quite some time but have never bothered to read it. The part of the article I will quote I only offer for it's significance in our discussion about whether or not Muslim force slaughtered or caused *terror* in people by forcibly enslaving them. I would also just note, regarding your proposition that Christian crusaders went on a mission simply to commit genocide through Europe to the Middle East and through Asia (Mongolia, India, China, Japan) not having much leg to stand on. Crusaders were in contact with the Mongolians of the great Khan. Crusaders never attempted go on a mission to sack Mecca, to fight and kill all Buddhists, or to begin a war with the Hindus. Again, the Crusaders only took some *cities.* In other words they formed no Ottoman Empire nor the Empire of Brazil nor the United States of America. The Crusaders essentially took and held a Chicago, a Cleveland, a Jersey City. An epic struggle to commit genocide? Hardly.

Source: Link of source

Source

I forgot to post about some of the conquest into "India" or Hindu lands in my post above so I'll quickly post the excerpts from that same article here.

Bold my emphasis.

i think thats avery interesting thing
u see i understand that ppl may get the wrong idea about other ppl sometimes but what i cant understand and no1 can is when ppl dont try and dont want to get u right

almost all ppl around the world cursing muslims and spit on them some ppl dont even know y they just heard about it

no it does
if ppl learn anything about this golden age it will prove to them that we r not these monsters they think we r then we may get along with the rest of the world

believe me the world make it worse

The authors you've listed also wrote books on many other topics, including astronomy, mathematics, chemistry, engineering, physics, philosophy, psychology, technology, biomedical sciences, earth sciences, social sciences, etc. Here are some more notable medieval Muslim scientists, engineers, philosophers and writers during the Islamic golden age (7th-13th centuries):

Banu Musa brothers (astronomers, mathematicians, physicists, mechanical engineers)
Thabit ibn Qurra (astronomer, mathematician)
Armen Firman (aviator)
Abbas ibn Firnas (aviator, engineer)
Al-Jahiz (biologist, evolutionist)
Ibn Miskawayh (philosopher, evolutionist)
Abu al-Wafa (astronomer, mathematician)
Al-Khujandi (astronomer, mathematician)
Abu Nasr Mansur (mathematician)
Abulcasis (father of modern surgery)
Alhacen (father of optics, pioneer of scientific method, considered the "first scientist")
Avenzoar (physician)
Al-Khazini (astronomer, physicist)
Averroes (philosopher, secularist, founder of Averroism)
Al-Jazari (father of robotics and modern engineering)

There were also some more after the Islamic golden age (late 13th-18th century):

Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (astronomer, mathematician, philosopher, evolutionist)
Ibn al-Shatir (astronomer)
Hasan al-Rammah (weapons engineer)
Ibn Khaldun (father of sociology, demography, historiography, and philosophy of history)
Taqi al-Din (mechanical engineer)
Celebi brothers (aviators)
Sake Dean Mahomet (first "shampooing surgeon")
Tipu Sultan (weapons engineer)


I've already pointed out that the Arabs/Moors did keep slaves and they certainly did kill soldiers in warfare, but my point was about whether they killed civilians during their early conquests. The kind of evidence I was looking for was primary sources. The first article doesn't given any primary sources, while the second article does give primary sources, but only for two of the examples: the conquest of the city of Bahnasa in Egypt (reported by John of Nikiu 60 years later) and the Armenian rebellion (apparently reported by Ibn al-Athir, Muhammad al-Kufi and Theophanes a few centuries later). The other examples don't suggest any civilians were killed, except for the conquest of Syracuse (but again, no primary source is given).

It seems there were several early Muslim conquerers who did kill civilians, but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule, since the objective of the early Muslim conquests was the colonization of Christian lands. But for the Crusaders, their objective wasn't just colonization, but the eradication of Muslims and Jews (and sometimes even Eastern Christians), hence why the Crusades are often viewed in a more negative light.


These examples of Muslim fanaticism or genocide are from a later era, after the decline of Islamic civilization from the 13th century onwards. The Islamic golden age pretty much came to an end after the Crusades and especially the Mongol invasions (including the destruction of many cities and libraries). Since then, the earlier more open-minded schools of thought declined and the more orthodox schools of thought dominated the Islamic world (some of them apparently thought of the invasions as punishment from God). However, some Muslim writers at the time were already aware of this decline and the change in attitudes, and reasons for these were given by Ibn Khaldun in the 14th century in his writings on the rise and fall of civilizations.

In India's case, K. S. Lal's population estimates have been contradicted by population estimates given by the economic historian Angus Maddison, who showed that India's population was steadily increasing during that time (1000-1700). There were several acts of genocide at the time (driven by either fanatacism or plunder in Timur's case), but not enough to have an impact on the Indian population.

Yes they were into other things too. My post was adressing Amir's post (about my previous post on Islamic occultism).
There are some interesting Islamic occult books out there.
(Not that I dont find the hobbies of these men to be interesting to say the least.)
I believe it was Arabs who introduce alchemy to Europe and quite possibly astrology as well. (Its quite possible that European occult books like the Picatrix came from Arab sources.)

Well, it wasn't just alchemy and astrology, but probably almost every other science medieval Europe learnt came from the Islamic world, via Muslim territories in Spain, Portugual, southern France, and southern Italy. During the Christian conquests of Islamic Spain and Sicily, medieval Europe inherited a hundred or so Muslim libraries, the largest of them containing more than half a million Arabic books (some of these also included translations of Greek and Sanskrit texts). Thousands of these Arabic books were translated into Latin in Spain and Italy from the 11th to 15th centuries, paving the way for Europe's Rennaissance.

I don't know too much about the Arabic occult books, but I can give more details on Arabic "alchemy". The word "alchemy" was derived from the Arabic word "al-kimia" (art of transformation), but the al-kimia practiced by medieval Muslims was more of a general chemical investigation of nature using an early experimental method, more like modern chemistry rather than traditional alchemy. Muslim alchemists, including Geber (considered the father of chemistry), did not believe in the superstitions associated with traditional alchemy (i.e. eternal life on Earth, or the creation of life in a laboratory), due to religious beliefs. However, Geber did come up with the concept of transforming an inexpensive metal into a more precious metal (e.g. from lead to gold), which later inspired European alchemists to seek out the "Philosopher's Stone".

Yes I am quite familar where the word Alchemy came from: Arabic "al-klmya". I believe theres other words that came from Arabic found in the English language like "alembic" etc.

Wasnt Geber/Jabir ibn Hayyan also into the creation of Takwin (sorta like a humunculous)?

I do remember seeing a documentry where they did show a some substantial number of old books in Spain. Something worth investigating in my opinion. Although I wouldnt mind finding out wheres the largest collection of Arabic manuscripts are being held in. Maybe the "Institute For Palestine Studies"????

Other words from Arabic include algebra, algorithm, alcohol, alkali, and probably almost every other word beginning with "al".

If those "Geber" manuscripts are from Spain, then it's probably written by a "pseudo-Geber", alchemists who wrote under the pen-name "Geber" to cash-in on his fame. There are about 2,000 Arabic and Latin books attributed to Geber, but probably only half of them are his own works.

There are over 3 million medieval Arabic manuscripts stored in manuscript collections across the world. I'm not sure how many Arabic manuscripts the Institute For Palestine Studies has, but the largest Arabic manuscript collection I've heard of is in Turkey, which apparently has over 100,000 Arabic manuscripts (and more in Turkish). A few other manuscript collections include one in Egypt which has more than 50,000 Arabic manuscripts, one in Macedonia which has about 4,000 Arabic and Turkish manuscripts, the Library of the Khedive which has 14,000 Arabic manuscripts, the Biblioteca Ambrosiana which has over 2,000 Arabic manuscripts, the Institute of Oriental Studies which has over 1,000 Arabic manuscripts, etc. However, only a small percentage of all these Arabic manuscripts have actually been published, and even fewer have been translated, so what is currently known about Muslim science, philosophy and literature represents only a small fraction of everything written in these (mostly unread) manuscripts.

EDIT: I think you might be right about Geber. He did come up with the idea of artificial creation of life (Takwin) in the laboratory. The idea probably wasn't rejected by Muslim alchemists until after his time.

I wasnt neccesarily refering to "Geber" manuscripts from Spain.

I totally agree. I think its often Western societies that have wrong perceptions of other societies academic achievements due to the fact few works has been translated from other civilzations (in particular where that has been an abudance of written material in existence already). For example there are tons of ancient literature from China, Japan etc (that hasnt been translated) but the public's perception is that the only material that these civilizations wrote are The I Ching, Sun Tzu Art of War, The Book of Five Rings....

I kind of realized that. I think Geber did in fact discuss the concept of a Takwin (or homonculous), but this idea didn't seem popular among Muslim alchemists. On the other hand, later European alchemists were a lot more fascinated by this idea.


True. Along with the three million Arabic manuscripts I mentioned before, there are at least more than a million Chinese and Indian manuscripts stored in manuscript collections across the world, as well as thousands of Japanese, Korean, Persian, Turkish, etc. manuscripts. Almost all the known Greek and Latin manuscripts have already been published and are widely available throughout many libraries, but there are still millions of Eastern manuscripts which are still waiting to be published and haven't yet been read. The current perceptions on non-Western achievements are still largely incomplete. It would take at least decades of research (or longer) before we have a more complete picture on the achievements of non-Western civilizations.

I wonder..why so many people defend Islam. And if Islam did preach equality then why the hell are people claiming that they should ISLAMIFY the world i mean. Before when muslims invaded the west they gave an offer. Convert to Islam or keep your religion and pay an extra tax..Wow Muslims are so kind then.(no offense though i respect Islam)

Hi, you can actually find some major works from the Islamic Golden Age as PDF downloads at www.antiochgate.com

Books such as the Ghayat al-Hakim, the Rasa'il Ikhwan as-Safa, the Shams al-Ma'arif, etc. There's a lot of bibliographical/biographical information there too.

The subjects covered are alchemy, talismanic magic, astrology, history, philosophy, and so on. Definitely worth a browse.

Hey thanks! I like your name too! "Picatrix"- name of an occult book translated from the Arabs.

Yep it's a nice name isn't it. Nobody is quite sure where the name comes from. Some say it has something to do with Goddess-ism, but l think that's more of a modern fad. I suspect it might have something to do with the creation of talismanic images / pictures.