Hacker News Reader

I have read Vol. 1 of H. A. R. Gibb's translation, and though there are really cool gems in it, it is incredibly dry. I wouldn't recommend it unless you are really interested, and even then, be prepared for it to be a slog.

For something along similar-ish lines, Canetti's Crowds and Power does a good job of weaving together some lessons from Battuta's account with many other primary historical sources.

It appears that someone completed Gibb's work:

The Travels of Ibn Battuta / A.D. 1325-1354 … / Volume IV / The translation completed with annotations by C. F. Beckingham / 1994.

Found that listed on the Hakluyt Society's website, which published a edition of the Cambridge volumes for their members. It appears they worked to complete the translation in the 90's.

"Not all, not even most, Muslims were Arabs. Islam may have been the first world civilization; in period it stretched from Spain to Malaya. Muslims might be Arabs, Berbers, East or West African Blacks, Indians, Kurds, Mongols, Persians, Turks, ... . They were all united by a common religion and a common religious language, but divided by numerous religious factions, languages, and cultures"

Isn’t this all true today?

Yes.

Most of it?

Some parts of the above are things which cannot change with time, if considered accurate. Like "[was] the first world civilization". Others can, and have, like Spain.

In a sense, Islam is more Persian than Arab. Just about everything east, and north of Modern day Iran was conquered and introduced to Islam by Persianate. The Golden age of Islam was due to Ibn Sina, Al Khawarazmi, and friends.

That's quite reductionist (and a bit racist). Islam grew very quickly under Omar Ibn AlKhtab.

> Under Umar, the caliphate expanded at an unprecedented rate, ruling the Sasanian Empire and more than two-thirds of the Byzantine Empire.[3] His attacks against the Sasanian Empire resulted in the conquest of Persia in less than two years (642–644). According to Jewish tradition, Umar set aside the Christian ban on Jews and allowed them into Jerusalem and to worship.[4] Umar was assassinated by the Persian slave Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz in 644.

All of these civilizations will contribute to the Empire. Not much different than what's happening in the US right now.

I'm no historian or anything, but based on history, it was probably Omar who made up Islam in the first place as a way to conquer. The Wikipedia page has some info on that:

> Umar converted to Islam in 616, one year after the Migration to Abyssinia. The story was recounted in Ibn Ishaq's Sīrah. On his way to murder Muhammad, Umar met his best friend Nu'aym ibn Abd Allah who had secretly converted to Islam but had not told Umar. When Umar informed him that he had set out to kill Muhammad, Nu'aym said, “By God, you have deceived yourself, O Umar! Do you think that Banu Abd al-Manaf would let you run around alive once you had killed their son Muhammad? Why don't you return to your own house and at least set it straight?"

This story is probably BS. Omar influenced Muhammad and had him under his command. He then used him to propagate his rule. He was quite agnostic in his state building (he accepted both Jewish and Christians).

>but based on history, it was probably Omar who made up Islam in the first place as a way to conquer.

Baseless claim. Show us the history then.

>Omar influenced Muhammad and had him under his command.

Another baseless claim.

>He then used him to propagate his rule.

Bold claim.

>He was quite agnostic in his state building (he accepted both Jewish and Christians).

What does "agnostic in his state building" even mean? Are all leaders who had subjects of other religions (with all the conditions that may or may not come with) "agnostic in their state building"?

This is ludicrous

> This story is probably BS. Omar influenced Muhammad and had him under his command.

There have been a number of revisionist histories of early Islam that have been floated by serious historians. Has any of them ever cast aspersion on that story, and if so, for what reason? Has any of them made the argument that it was Umar who was the motivating force behind Islam? (using God knows what evidence--seems like if one isn't inclined to accept the basics of the traditional accounts, there isn't a lot to go by period)

If you are not a historian, then at least cite a real historian if you are going to make such claims.

Man, don't argue with these people. They have hate toward all Arabs for some reason.

I don't think the quote in my original comment was (or was intended as) anti-Arab.

The diversity of Muslims can be seen as a compliment to Arabs.

Love or hate something, the objective fact that it appeals to people all over the world from many different cultures is significant.

It is not a compliment to Arabs, and it is not the point. I commented specifically because of this sentence "Islam is more Persian than Arab" (which wasn't by you).

Arabs don't have a special place, and the role that Persians played is very well known, BUT, a sentence like this usually comes from people who want to dismiss Arabs completely. And the problem feels undecidable too. There were a lot of scholars. A lot of them spoke Arabic better than most Arabs today. You could find a lot of them have mixed parents and were raised in Arabs culture. How will you decide exactly?

It is a useless debate.

Rome wasn't the first world civilization?