I'm liking this doco. Watched Part I
There two things here. Arab Emperor's needed to rule over a vast empire. This meant unifying language. Obviously in the a language the Emperor understood - Arabic. Now, the good thing is a LOT of information can be shared between people with a common language. This increases exposure to, and even development of, new ideas. Bad thing is it means other conquered people lose their culture. I mean, who gives anyone the right to determine other people's fate? War.
Second interesting idea was about the spread of Islam. It was through war and intimidation. But, Muslim's didn't initially force people to convert. People tended to support the winning God. Arabs were winning, their God must be a strong God. It's not that Muslims forced people to convert, it's just as they killed their rulers, people thought, well, these guy's God(s) must be more powerful. So they follow that one. Christianity spread in much the same way.
Thirdly, Arabs are renown for having gathered such massive amounts of information in the libraries at Baghdad. This is good. What's bad is it meant libraries from all over the conquered world (like Monasteries) were looted. Because sometimes, if the book was totally novel, it was worth it's weight in gold. Literally. You got an equal amount of gold for the book. Which is bad. So, again, we have two side of a coin. It's great because lots of knowledge is gathered and processed. It's bad because it often meant at the expense of other conquered people.
In a real sense, Arabs were basically no different than pretty much anyone else. They did what they could to rule the Empire they conquered.
Take The Canon of Medicine by Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb. Who happens to be Persian. The ideas in the book aren't all that much his. But, the idea of a collection of ideas was his. So, an Arab invention may be the support for the encyclopedia (that's wiki for everyone under 25
) on a large scale. I'm not 100% sure if the library at Alexandria was very similar in making encyclopedia's?
Take al-Khwārizmī as another example, a Persian polymath. Did he invent algebra? No. But he did change the way people thought about doing math. The way he writes he's thinking "take the square root of 1/2 the square" without really using any numbers. that 1/2 the square is what's the important contribution. It's thinking abstractly about the number without an associated a number. So, THAT'S the contribution, not so much the math.
That the Author has balance. While it's evident he really wants to put Muslim's role on the Sciences in a good light. He does show where it was lacking as well. For example, from a book, Sayings of the Prophet you'll find good information about the plague. AKA: If you have it, stay in doors and don't visit any other towns, don't go to a town where people have it. But then in the same book it criticizes the Greeks for teaching depression is associated with the brain, when it's clearly the work of evil spirits.
The author ends by saying what Muslim's contributed the most, was to show Science is not Islamic, not Christian, not Chinese, not Indian and not Greek. It's Science.
I've walked away from episode 1 thinking that the advancements made in the early centuries following the Arab Wars were due to the positioning of Baghdad in the then world of commerce. It was right in the middle. AND that those Arabs were NOT really "Muslims" at that time (as Muslims think of themselves now, Arabs back then didn't use the word "Muslim"). What motivated Arabs at that time were concerns about "Empire" and maintaining it. Lot's of times this goes hand in hand with progress. Until you have to settle down and devise a way to rule everyone you've conquered. Making the switch from maintaining Rule from expanding an Empire all we ended up with were your typical Emperors, Dynastic rule and the use of Islam to control people [but it could have just as easily been Judaism or Christianity or Buddhism]. Religion doesn't equate to Scientific Progress. It more akin to tossing your hands in the air and saying The Gods did it.
Consider Dynastic Rule in an Empire where the Emperor has decided that the best way to rule over the People is to perpetuate their fear of a God -versus- having the foresight (or trust) in handing over control of your Empire to the very People who helped create it and those that make it up - - as in a Democratic Republic.
There two things here. Arab Emperor's needed to rule over a vast empire. This meant unifying language. Obviously in the a language the Emperor understood - Arabic. Now, the good thing is a LOT of information can be shared between people with a common language. This increases exposure to, and even development of, new ideas. Bad thing is it means other conquered people lose their culture. I mean, who gives anyone the right to determine other people's fate? War.
Second interesting idea was about the spread of Islam. It was through war and intimidation. But, Muslim's didn't initially force people to convert. People tended to support the winning God. Arabs were winning, their God must be a strong God. It's not that Muslims forced people to convert, it's just as they killed their rulers, people thought, well, these guy's God(s) must be more powerful. So they follow that one. Christianity spread in much the same way.
Thirdly, Arabs are renown for having gathered such massive amounts of information in the libraries at Baghdad. This is good. What's bad is it meant libraries from all over the conquered world (like Monasteries) were looted. Because sometimes, if the book was totally novel, it was worth it's weight in gold. Literally. You got an equal amount of gold for the book. Which is bad. So, again, we have two side of a coin. It's great because lots of knowledge is gathered and processed. It's bad because it often meant at the expense of other conquered people.
In a real sense, Arabs were basically no different than pretty much anyone else. They did what they could to rule the Empire they conquered.
Take The Canon of Medicine by Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb. Who happens to be Persian. The ideas in the book aren't all that much his. But, the idea of a collection of ideas was his. So, an Arab invention may be the support for the encyclopedia (that's wiki for everyone under 25
) on a large scale. I'm not 100% sure if the library at Alexandria was very similar in making encyclopedia's? Take al-Khwārizmī as another example, a Persian polymath. Did he invent algebra? No. But he did change the way people thought about doing math. The way he writes he's thinking "take the square root of 1/2 the square" without really using any numbers. that 1/2 the square is what's the important contribution. It's thinking abstractly about the number without an associated a number. So, THAT'S the contribution, not so much the math.
That the Author has balance. While it's evident he really wants to put Muslim's role on the Sciences in a good light. He does show where it was lacking as well. For example, from a book, Sayings of the Prophet you'll find good information about the plague. AKA: If you have it, stay in doors and don't visit any other towns, don't go to a town where people have it. But then in the same book it criticizes the Greeks for teaching depression is associated with the brain, when it's clearly the work of evil spirits.
The author ends by saying what Muslim's contributed the most, was to show Science is not Islamic, not Christian, not Chinese, not Indian and not Greek. It's Science.
I've walked away from episode 1 thinking that the advancements made in the early centuries following the Arab Wars were due to the positioning of Baghdad in the then world of commerce. It was right in the middle. AND that those Arabs were NOT really "Muslims" at that time (as Muslims think of themselves now, Arabs back then didn't use the word "Muslim"). What motivated Arabs at that time were concerns about "Empire" and maintaining it. Lot's of times this goes hand in hand with progress. Until you have to settle down and devise a way to rule everyone you've conquered. Making the switch from maintaining Rule from expanding an Empire all we ended up with were your typical Emperors, Dynastic rule and the use of Islam to control people [but it could have just as easily been Judaism or Christianity or Buddhism]. Religion doesn't equate to Scientific Progress. It more akin to tossing your hands in the air and saying The Gods did it.
Consider Dynastic Rule in an Empire where the Emperor has decided that the best way to rule over the People is to perpetuate their fear of a God -versus- having the foresight (or trust) in handing over control of your Empire to the very People who helped create it and those that make it up - - as in a Democratic Republic.
Last edited:
